Test Cricket - Less is More?

    When cricket’s ‘Big Three’ nations These decided to make their take-over of the international game ‘official’ four years ago, the coup didn’t go well or last long. Like most coup d’etats it wasn’t well received when legislated. These things are best done without guns blazing.

    If they had merely ‘influenced’ their fellow members on the ICC Board (with promises of a few lucrative tours) to ratify changes to the revenue distribution model and domination of the Future Tours programme, their take-over would have elicited some angry newspaper columns but the fuss would have blown over. Just as it will now.

    The ICC’s next Future Tours Programme which will run from 2023 to 2027, if passed in its current form, will do more than raise a few eyebrows but there is very little that can be done about it by the ‘small seven’. India, England and Australia will play against each other at least as often as they do now, in all formats, with extended Test series of four or five matches.

    There will be a major ICC men’s event every year with the T20 World Cup set to feature every second year. The IPL will expand yet again and take another two-week bite out of the international schedule leaving even less room for bilateral tours and Test cricket for the smaller Test nations.

    Having had a sneak preview look at the new FTP my eyes watered. Almost. I have been expecting it for a decade. The supporters of nations like South Africa are in for a shock. Five or six Tests per year looks like it will become the new normal with the majority of series limited to two Tests and, in some years which will be dominated by white-ball cricket, there will be as few as four Tests per year.  

    Cricket New Zealand, which has been way ahead of the administrative game amongst the small seven for many years, made the strategic decision five years ago to adopt this strategy before it was imposed on them. They play two-Test series at home, focus on the more lucrative white-ball fixtures and prioritise the financial health of the game above the desire, or luxury, of playing more Test cricket. They were also the first nation, outside of India, to carve out as much of their schedule for the IPL as they could. And to pre-agree release clauses for their IPL players when international fixtures clashed.

    There are many reasons why England may have suddenly started playing such thrilling and dynamic Test cricket against New Zealand in the last couple of weeks after two years of a mostly defensive and turgid approach. The appointment of Brendon McCullum as Test coach is the most popular, but is it the most obvious? The rock-star former Kiwi captain played most of his career with an all-or-nothing approach but can that really be transferred to a new team which had won just one of their last 17 Tests? It can certainly help.

    Another reality is that England play around 16 Tests a year. It’s not quite IPL frequency but it’s more than any other country plays. So with 160 runs required in the final session of the second Test against New Zealand, Jonny Bairstow launched one of the greatest batting assaults of all time to win the game. Safe in the knowledge that McCullum had assured of him of his place in the starting XI - and that there were still five Tests to come in the English summer. And lots more in the winter. And every summer and winter thereafter. The opportunity was there to try and do something extremely special without the fear of long-term consequence or judgement.

    The same will never apply to players from the West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, New Zealand and Bangladesh – but mostly South Africa – because opportunities will become increasingly scarce and each one will carry increasing gravitas. Especially for South Africa if are able to maintain their current, well-placed push for a place in the second edition of the World Test Championship final next year.

    For almost a decade South Africa commanded the fourth most prestigious seat at the high table of the international game. It wasn’t because of the quality of its administraters, it was because the Proteas were ranked number one in the world in all three formats. And they were beating India, England and Australia. Counter-intuitive as it may sound, beating the ‘big-three’ doesn’t lead to less party invites, it leads to more because, ultimately, broadcasters shape fixture lists based on results – and on the teams which win most often.

    Cricket South Africa’s executive and majority-independent board has become almost catatonically quiet in recent months. Nobody is available to answer actual questions. Nobody can even say who the best person is to answer those questions. At a critical point in the games’ history, everybody is diving for cover. The Proteas men’s team, which currently generates over 90% of the national game’s revenue and keeps it alive, is operating in a vacuum.

    The Proteas need to win a lot – pretty much everything – to keep the game relevant. There is nothing coming from the boardroom. No wonder there is such disconnect between the players and the bosses for whom they have, understandably, little respect.