There is a surfeit of emotion and anxiety concerning the future of the game at both domestic and international level around the world at the moment, and not without reason. In normal circumstances it is the future of Test cricket at the heart of the consternation but now it is the survival of 50-over cricket.
Ben Stokes’ sudden and unexpected retirement from the format is the latest catalyst prompting speculation that a swathe of the world’s best players may walk away from ODIs after next year’s World Cup.
Cricket logic is understandable but cricketers tend to forget that the workloads about which they complain are not fashioned by themselves or even their insensitive, uncaring administrators but by the broadcasters which are willing to pay the money which sees England, for example, coming to the end of a stretch of 12 white-ball games against India and the Proteas in 18 days.
A One-Day International offers an eight-hour window for broadcasters to sell millions of dollars of advertising and, while the best players may not enjoy the idea of rest and rotation, it makes little difference to the bottom-line income. England against India or SA is still exactly whether Stokes or Kagiso Rabada are playing or not.
The proliferation of domestic T20 leagues will not abate. When Ray Kroc founded McDonald’s in 1955 he was told it would never last. Now there are more than 36,000 of them in 100+ countries. Instant, convenient, momentarily satisfying and quickly forgotten — until the next one. There are still proper restaurants in the world to cater for people who prefer a real meal but they are outnumbered by takeaways and delivery services.
Years ago it was suggested in this column that cricket might consider a system in which limited overs internationals were restricted to T20s for three out of four years in every ICC “cycle” and ODIs were played in the 12 months before each 50-over World Cup.
It needn’t be an unbreakable regulation but it would be a way of decluttering the schedule.
One thing is perfectly clear, however. The World Test Championship is now the only mechanism in existence to keep the five-day game alive in the majority of Test-playing nations. The “big three” appear oblivious to the long-term need to have other strong teams to play against apart from each other. The only series scheduled in the next four years to include three or more Tests all involve India, England or Australia, and most of them are against each other.
India play 38 Test matches in that time of which 20 are against England or Australia (who play five Ashes Tests every two years, of course.) So, the biggest and richest (not necessarily the best) have not only maintained their domination of the Test schedule, they have increased it. From a capitalist economy point of view, it makes sense.
As much as SA, Sri Lankan, Caribbean and Pakistani cricket lovers might enjoy Test cricket and would appreciate a little more of it, the harsh reality is that it is expensive to stage and hard to turn profit in those countries. The evidence is irrefutable that cricket lovers follow and enjoy Test cricket in those regions, but they do not buy tickets and put their bums on seats.
But as long as the “big three” continue to fulfil their WTC obligations by popping down to New Zealand, or Colombo or Cape Town for a fortnight to play a couple of Tests, and find a small gap to host the “small seven” nations to determine the WTC finalists every two years, the greatest format will survive. But it is being squeezed harder than ever, and it has been squeezed hard before.
The earliest arguments about the health of Test cricket were recorded in 1909 when the game was said to be “too slow” and losing its appeal. The solution was to be a Triangular Tournament between England, Australia and SA (the only Test playing nations) in the English summer of 1912. England won four of their six Tests but it was largely a disaster with the heaviest rainfall on record that summer and no interest in the Australia-SA Tests. The plan had been to stage it every four years but it never happened again.
A multi-team Test Championship wasn’t attempted again until the Asia Cup in 1998/1999 and again in 2001/2002 but it was felt by the players to be a little too “manufactured” and the schedule was too intense. That, too, never took place again.
The World Test Championship is cricket’s “third time lucky” though there is a bit more at stake than in the previous editions of multi-team Test tournaments. Like the game itself. Perhaps England and Australia can survive on Ashes alone with India, rolling in IPL riches, providing the only alternative. We may find out within a decade.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.