Photo by Joshua Olsen on Unsplash
The ICC revenue sharing model for the 2024-2027 cycle has raised concerns around the future-proofing of Test cricket globally. Since 2014, when it was first reported that the ‘Big 3’ – India, Australia, and England – were looking to gobble up more slices of the ICC revenue pie, many have been outspoken about whether this would stifle the growth of the game in other nations and cause Test cricket to die. The ‘Big 3’ play a prominent role in promoting the game, featuring in some of Test cricket’s most revered, showpiece bilateral series. But do we as the fans become intoxicated by the history and tradition tied to these series without always looking at the actual results more closely?
‘Is Test cricket dying?’
This is a question people following cricket have heard now for a long, long time. With the dramatic rise of T20 cricket and all the riches that have come with it, priorities for the players, administrators, and the fans, have shifted.
With scheduling becoming ever more packed (and bordering on the ridiculous), something will have to give if the game is to survive. It is now just a matter of when that breaking point will be reached.
When push comes to shove, there is little doubt that the things that remain will be the ones which are the most profitable – for the players, for the administrators, and for the broadcasters.
Chasing the almighty dollar is nothing new.
But at what point does corporate greed, and even the monopolisation of a basic sport – a game many fall in love with as a child for the sheer joy it brings along with the added aspirational incentive of representing your country – become destructive?
Or does it not pose a threat – is that simply a false narrative pushed to us by scaremongers?
In this 2-part feature series, I will provide my thoughts on the health of Test cricket as it stands now, and highlight the significance of watching the global game with an objective eye. I will also play devil’s advocate and provide my rationale for why an equal and equitable playing field in the game’s longest format is still warranted for all Test-playing nations.
The ‘Big 3’ of international cricket: India, Australia, and England
It is no secret the ‘Big 3’ of international cricket – India, Australia, and England – rule the roost.
They have done ever since their respective boards – the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Cricket Australia (CA), and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) – were first rumoured to take control of all executive decision-making within the International Cricket Council (ICC) and its finances back in 2014.
Although this initial agreement was fleeting, their grip on the international game has continued to tighten.
But in 2024, it would seem that CA and the ECB, part of the ‘Big 3’ by stature, now merely play a supporting act to the real boss.
The ICC revenue model for 2024-2027: the ‘Big 3’ no more?
In May 2023, reports of a new ICC revenue model for the 2024-2027 cycle began to circulate.
Rather than there being a prominent presence of the ’Big 3’ as a triumvirate, this time there looked to be just one big fish. Confirmed in July later that year at the ICC’s annual board meeting in Durban, it was announced that the BCCI would earn 38.5% of the ICC’s annual net earnings (US $600 million) for the 2024-2027 cycle.
To be more specific, the BCCI would earn US $231 million per year for those 4 years. This eclipsed their fellow ‘Big 3’ compatriots, CA and the ECB, who were projected to earn US $37.53 million per year and US $41.33 million per year, respectively (Figure 1).
Full member nations were scoped to receive US $532.84 million per year, while the remaining US $67.16 million per year would go to the associate nations.
With this announcement, it was clear that the BCCI was stepping into the driver’s seat with the finances of international cricket, including of course Test cricket.
Be that as it may, I would posit that the finances only comprise one pillar that props up the house of international cricket. The other pillar, which I believe often gets overlooked, is the cricket itself that is played and the results that are produced.
The new finance model may have accounted for prior performance to a degree, but as far as Test cricket goes, I do not feel it went far enough (something that will be elaborated upon in Part 2).
Figure 1. The ICC revenue model breakdowns per Test-playing nation for the 2024-2027 cycle (US $, in millions)
Pie chart depicting the sums of money each Test-playing nation will receive annually as part of the ICC revenue model for the 2024-2027 cycle
AFG, Afghanistan; AUS, Australia; BAN, Bangladesh; ENG, England; IND, India; IRE, Ireland; NZ, New Zealand; PAK, Pakistan; SA, South Africa; SL, Sri Lanka; WI, West Indies; ZIM, Zimbabwe
Test cricket still has an elitist mindset that extends beyond the finances, and one which suggests that only the fixtures and results involving the ‘Big 3’ are ‘box office’
As time has marched on I have felt that what constitutes ‘good, watchable Test cricket’, a phrase you come across most places you look these days, has changed in the eyes of the pundits, and to some degree, the broader fandom.
Maybe it is just me, or maybe others harbour a similar concern – but is there a growing, unspoken sentiment that only the results that involve, and take place in, India, Australia, and England truly matter?
Purely from a fixtures and a ‘number of Tests per series’ standpoint, this certainly seems to be the case.
At the end of 2024, India will travel to Australia to contest the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (BGT); this time a 5-Test series. Meanwhile, England will host India for a 5-Test series (the Pataudi Trophy) in 2025 before jetting off Down Under for the Ashes in 2025/26 across the now-traditional 5 Tests.
Nowadays, 5-Test series (and even 4-Test series) seem to be reserved only for certain, ‘showpiece’ events, while the majority of series involving the ‘non-Big 3’ nations feature a maximum of 3 Tests (and very often just 2 Tests).
In 2022, when the Men’s Future Tours Programme was announced for 2023-2027, it was evident that the ‘Big 3’ were set to lead the charge for the promotion of Test cricket.
The ‘Big 3’ were pencilled in to play a total of 121 Tests, while the other 9 Test-playing nations combined would participate in 225 (Figure 2).
To the dismay of many, teams with a rich history of Test success, some even within the last decade, were allocated a limited number of matches during this 4-year cycle:
- Sri Lanka: 25 Tests
- West Indies: 26 Tests
- Pakistan: 27 Tests
- South Africa: 28 Tests (remember, SA were #1 in the ICC rankings for a significant period of time in the early- and mid-2010s)
- New Zealand: 32 Tests (NZ won the inaugural ICC World Test Championship [WTC] in 2021, beating India in the final)
This mentality revolving around the exploits of the dominant ‘Big 3’, which can be viewed as elitism, has always simmered away just below the surface. In recent times though, it has felt like this has spilled over the brim, dampening the moods of the other nations.
By extension, it will also most likely raise that question, ‘is Test cricket dying?’
But why is it that this narrative continues to be pushed when the on-field performances, both home and away, do not always categorically support the perceived vast superiority of the ‘Big 3’ over the remaining, fully-fledged Test-playing nations?
This will be the topic of Part 2. But for now, let us get back to the ‘Big 3’ themselves.
Figure 2. The number of Tests each Test-playing nation is scheduled to play in the 2023-2027 ICC Men’s Future Tours Programme
Bar charts showing the number of Test matches each Test-playing nation will play (depicted with different colours) during the Men’s 2023-2027 cycle. England, India, and Australia lead the way
Does ‘context’ subconsciously influence people’s opinions on the actual quality of Test performances involving the ‘Big 3’?
‘Context’ is a term that is thrown around a lot when it comes to Test cricket.
It was, in large part, why the WTC was established – to incentivise Test cricket for all teams, ‘Big 3’ or otherwise. In this case, the incentive was the points on offer that could lead you to a prestigious final in order to conclusively decide who the best Test team would be for that given 2-year cycle.
Think of it as a 2-year-long World Cup for Test players, if you will, with something definitive to claim in terms of silverware and bragging rights at the end of the road.
In many ways, the WTC was intended to be the answer, or solution, to the question, ‘is Test cricket dying?’
Despite this though, pundits and fans continue to feel lukewarm about the WTC as a concept, and the overall direction Test cricket is taking. For many, there still appears to be a strong attachment to ‘how things used to be’ that prevents a full acceptance of the WTC for what it is supposed to be: an arena for all Test series to hold equal value (or as close to equal value as possible) regardless of whether it features the ‘Big 3’ or not.
For me, one of Test cricket’s greatest hooks is the fact that, over time, bilateral series become steeped in history, tradition, and legacy. Nevertheless, blindly embracing this sentimentality has the ability to distract you from the harsh truths you may not want to acknowledge.
History and prestige often mask the reality of the level of competition on display in the Ashes – especially in the 21st century
Test cricket has been around since the 1800s. With this comes history, legacy, and rivalry.
When England took on Australia in 1877 at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, this marked the start of Test cricket, and also, the Ashes.
The Ashes is cricket’s most long-standing, bilateral rivalry. Not only has it produced some of the format’s most captivating and closely-fought series, but it has also ignited a passion from the general public in both England and Australia that has seen crowds reach fever pitch for entire summers.
And in some cases, the Ashes has conjured up some of Test cricket’s most defining, and controversial, moments, such as the ‘Bodyline’ series of 1932/33.
But in the same breath, we can also confidently say that the Ashes has regularly proven to be extremely one-sided – particularly in the 21st century.
Yes, 2005, 2009, and 2023 (and even Headingley 1981 and 2019) will all go down as some of the Ashes’, and Test cricket’s, finest chapters. Yet, very few bring up the 2006/07 and 2013/14 whitewashes, each of the 4-0 drubbings Australia dealt out in 2017/18 and 2021/22, or even the 4-1 series win in 2001 which included innings victories in 2 of the Tests.
Ironically, ex-England fast bowler, Stuart Broad, even went as far as to say the 2021/22 Ashes series did not count in his mind, labelling it as “void” due to the lack of competitive edge England showed. Unsurprisingly, his comments did not go down well in Australia.
To really hammer this point home, England have not won a single Test in Australia (let alone a series), since 2010/11, when England were at their zenith under captain Andrew Strauss and coach Andy Flower. In contrast, in the same time-frame Australia have at least managed to win Tests in England in 2015, and even draw the series (and retain the Ashes) in 2019 and 2023.
In short, the Ashes might be steeped in tradition, but the bottom line is the competitiveness of these contests over the last 25 years has been very hit and miss.
Nonetheless, among the ‘Big 3’, such mismatches are not confined to the Ashes.
The England-India rivalry may lack the sporting legacy of the Ashes, but its historical real-world thread, when pulled, elicits a different sort of mood
Cricket was brought to India by the British during the colonial period.
Starting with the first match played in 1721 by mariners of the East India Company, India’s old colonial rulers imposed traditional British values and practices, including sport, to reinforce their power.
But with time, India slowly adopted the sport and infused into it a sense of their own national identity that would see cricket become more than just a game their colonial masters brought to them. And with the emergence of superstars like Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar, and Sachin Tendulkar, individual brilliance and early team success (such as the 1983 World Cup win) would firmly place India on the cricketing map as a force to be reckoned with.
And come the 21st century, India would revolutionise the sport with the Indian Premier League. With exorbitant cash at their disposal and the cricketing world firmly in their hands, India are now the undisputed powerhouse of cricket – a far cry from the days under colonial rule.
Given this is the sort of history that serves as a backdrop for England-India Test series, one cannot help but feel that contests between these countries always has something a little more at stake than just ‘who walks away with the trophy?’. There is a matter of immense national pride and independence, particularly for Team India, and a chance to show the world how far they have come since their colonial past.
A map showing the reach of the British Empire in 1886
“Imperial Federation, map of the world showing the extent of the British Empire in 1886” by Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the BPL is licensed under CC BY 2.0
But as far as the results themselves go, it has, once again, often been one-sided (with the odd exception) due to each team’s struggles to adapt to their opponent’s native conditions.
From an England standpoint, winning at home (the Pataudi Trophy) has largely been a breeze since 2010. England won 4-1 in 2018, 3-1 in 2014, and 4-0 in 2011 – a symptom of Indian batters not always being able to come to terms with swinging conditions against the likes of James Anderson and Stuart Broad, and Indian bowlers failing to regularly pick up 20 wickets.
The 2021 tour to England, which was a match-up featuring debatably Team India’s best and most versatile team in their Test history, and England’s most timid team, was a notable exception. Here, India led the series 2-1 before it was abruptly called off due to a COVID outbreak.
As it turned out, the final Test played in 2022 was won by ‘Bazball’, resulting in a final series scoreline of 2-2.
For more on ‘Bazball’, be sure to check out the 4-part feature series, ‘Bazball, Test Cricket’s Modern Enigma’ (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).
On the flip side, bar one hiccup in 2012/13 where England was the all-round better and more settled team, India have been impregnable at home. They won the Anthony de Mello Trophy 4-1 in 2024, 3-1 in 2021, and 4-0 in 2016.
England’s misfortunes on Indian soil has been a familiar tale of woe. Batters have generally failed to combat high-class spin from India’s world-beating quartet of Ravichandran Ashwin, Ravindra Jadeja, Axar Patel, and Kuldeep Yadav. Furthermore, England’s spinners have typically lacked the same quality, discipline, and variety to remain in the contest with ball in hand.
All in all, the England-India rivalry has, in truth, been another contest involving 2 of the ‘Big 3’ that has rarely produced hard-fought contests consistently.
The Border-Gavaskar trophy has been reborn as a riveting clash over the last decade
Until the conclusion of the 2014/15 series in Australia, the BGT predominantly followed a similar trend to the Ashes and the England-India rivalries – domination for the home team with the odd exception.
However, in the last 10 years, things have changed. Once Virat Kohli took over as full-time captain, he made it a point to instil within his Indian team a new hunger for the fight, especially abroad.
The first glimpses of this were seen in the 1st Test at Adelaide of the 2014/15 series, where Kohli stepped in to cover for MS Dhoni. Chasing 364 to win on a wearing Day 5 pitch, Kohli led the charge as he looked only for the win.
Despite a monumental effort by Kohli, who scored 141 off 175 balls, India would fall short by 48 runs. But this innings, as well as his leadership in the Test match, showcased a very different, aggressive look for this Indian side – something that has continued ever since.
India won both the 2018/19 and 2020/21 series in Australia, the latter of which was against all odds. This has been a rare instance of a team having prolonged success against Australia away from home over the last decade.
With the 2025/26 BGT nearly upon us, there is now a very justifiable case to be made that India start as favourites, or at the very least on even ground.
For Australia, they are yet to win a series in India since their 2004 triumph by their legendary team.
Nevertheless, they have still been able to win a Test in both the 2017 (at Pune) and 2023 (at Indore) series. While only solitary Test wins, even managing this is seldom seen for sides touring India – so this must be commended.
Overall, despite results favouring India in the last 10 years, only the BGT has proven to exhibit a genuine competitive edge among the bilateral series involving the ‘Big 3’.
Mitchell Johnson delivers a ball at the Gabba during the 2014/15 BGT series
“File:Australia v India Test match Cricket from the Gabba – Day 1 (15854604889).jpg” by Rae Allen from Brisbane, Australia is licensed under CC BY 2.0
Next time...
Test series involving the ‘Big 3’ have produced some of the format’s most memorable moments. However, the reality is that over the last decade the bilateral series played among the ‘Big 3’ have lacked legitimate competitiveness, with the home team often winning easily by large margins.
The only exception to this has been the BGT, where India have found a way to win both at home and in Australia.
Given the rich history tied to their bilateral series, as well as the individual superstars dotted throughout the Indian, Australian, and English teams, we sometimes fail to objectively reflect on these actual results.
This is something that, I believe, has been to the detriment of the ‘non-Big 3’ nations and part of the reason why the question ‘is Test cricket dying?‘ keeps cropping up.
In Part 2, I will discuss how the ‘Big 3’, both financially and by reputation, continue to cast a long shadow over the rest.
But again, a closer look at recent results suggests that the ‘non-Big 3’ nations have a valid reason to feel aggrieved at the low volume of Test cricket they receive, and the lack of respect occasionally shown to them by portions of the cricketing community.
Figure icon attributions
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/new-zealand” title=”new zealand icons”>New zealand icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/south-africa” title=”south africa icons”>South africa icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/india” title=”india icons”>India icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/pakistan” title=”pakistan icons”>Pakistan icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/england” title=”england icons”>England icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/australia” title=”australia icons”>Australia icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
West Indies Cricket Board Flag icon made by Icons8 <a target=”_blank” href=”https://icons8.com/icon/JakrjGGiHx2F/west-indies-cricket-board-flag”>West Indies Cricket Board Flag</a> icon by <a target=”_blank” href=”https://icons8.com”>Icons8</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/sri-lanka” title=”sri lanka icons”>Sri lanka icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
Image made by verluk from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/bangladesh” title=”bangladesh icons”>Bangladesh icons created by verluk – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/afghanistan” title=”afghanistan icons”>Afghanistan icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/zimbabwe” title=”zimbabwe icons”>Zimbabwe icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com <a href=”https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/ireland” title=”ireland icons”>Ireland icons created by Freepik – Flaticon</a>
DISCLAIMER
The posts published on this blog are intended simply to provide some food for thought for fellow cricket fans across the world. This is a place which respects and enjoys all cricketers from all nations and, as such, does NOT aim to solely vilify any specific person or team.
Differing opinions and lively debates are more than welcome. However, personal attacks and abuse of any kind will NOT be tolerated here.
Thanks for your understanding.