“File:Pm cricket shots09 6058.jpg” by self is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5
More than ever before, cricket is now a business with one of the major pillars supporting the sport being its finances. But amidst the despondency surrounding those that are in it solely for the coin, we must not lose sight of the cricket itself that is played – the second major pillar. Financially, Test cricket is spearheaded by the ‘Big 3’ given the invaluable commercial value they bring both nationally and internationally. But do the on-field results, across all nations, provide an interesting subplot that is being overlooked? Does this offer a much-needed counter-argument to ease the plight of those within the ‘non-Big 3’? And is Test cricket dying?
International cricket’s ‘Big 3’ – India, Australia, and England – are the game’s titans and chief shot callers, whether you like it or not. Given their undeniable power, one question continues to rear its head: ‘is Test cricket dying?‘
As the 3 richest cricket boards, they continue to promote the sport through thick and thin, driving the global cricket economy as they go. Through broadcasting media rights, sponsorship deals, and lucrative endeavours such as the Indian Premier League (in the case of the Board of Control for Cricket in India [BCCI]), the cash flow in and out of these business entities has only strengthened over the years.
As a reward for their efforts, they earn the lion’s share of the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) annual revenue (see Part 1).
Add to this the longstanding cricketing heritage of India, Australia, and England, as well as the individual superstars and cult figures that have emerged from these nations, the unbridled interest and fervour for the game among their fans become as electrifying as it is overwhelming.
A mere, fleeting mention of the Ashes, the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (BGT), or the Pataudi and Anthony de Mello Trophies is usually enough to transport fans of the ‘Big 3’ into a nostalgic trance. The next thing they know, they are reminiscing about their favourite moments from series gone by and engaging in heated debates over the seminal moments from these showpiece events.
The heightened level of enthusiasm that is able to be conjured by the ‘Big 3’ is a blessing for the game of cricket, showing us all the excesses of emotion, from ecstasy to agony, the game can allow us to indulge in.
And after all, that is why most of us fell in love with sport in the first place, right?
Therefore, with the sheer weight of reputation and clout the ‘Big 3’ hold, they are the beating heart of what international cricket now is, and remain at the forefront of what the sport has to offer, certainly in the Men’s arena.
But, what of the rest?
As the ‘Big 3’ strengthen their hold on the world game, including Test cricket, the stories of the rest can very quickly become lost. Tales of triumph for the ‘non-Big 3’ seem impermanent, with short expiration dates in terms of how far into the future these victories continue to be discussed.
Individual achievements get diluted amid the sheer volume of statistics that come out of the series involving the ‘Big 3’, who play each other more and more as the years roll on.
While this is understandable based on discussions held in Part 1, this is not excusable.
In Part 2, I will focus on the performances involving the ‘Big 3’ against the ‘non-Big 3’ from the last decade or so to try and provide a case as to why more Test cricket is warranted for the latter.
I will also speculate as to why there is a misconception that the ‘non-Big 3’ supposedly lack ‘quality’, when in reality, they regularly demonstrate a level of adaptability even the ‘Big 3’ have struggled to show.
In the modern era, credentials seem to be belittled when discussing players and teams outside of the ‘Big 3’, even if the numbers and context suggest otherwise
The ‘Big 3’ steal the limelight when it comes to conversations around the best teams and the best players. Yet, the exploits of the other Men’s Test-playing nations battle to remain relevant in the minds of a large portion of the fan base.
Why is that?
Every game is played with a bat and ball, with the same rules applying to all. Playing conditions offer challenges and advantages anywhere in the world and are, on average, the same for both teams when a game or series takes place.
So where does this disconnect come from?
There is a tendency to place the playing conditions in India, Australia, and England on a pedestal
The ‘Big 3’ provide some of the toughest challenges for both the home and visiting sides, especially for the batters. Each set of conditions put forth a range of pitch and atmospheric variables that requires every ounce of talent, determination, tactical nous, and self-belief to overcome.
India poses the greatest spin threat for batters from touring sides: a combination of turning tracks and, traditionally, the world’s best, most versatile spin attack capable of getting the most out of these tracks in their native conditions. If your technique is lacking, you will be made an example of by India’s spinners.
Australia hits you the hardest with pace: a country where a batter’s back-foot game is as much a staple of innings-building as front-foot play. Coupled with the fact that any given Australian Men’s team will boast not 1, not 2, but often 3 ‘archetypal Australian fast bowlers’ – equipped with height, speed, seam movement, and unceasing accuracy – thriving as a batter Down Under remains one of Test cricket’s sternest challenges.
Finally, England consistently examines your technique and patience – the product of the Duke’s ball. With swing on offer through virtually every over of every innings, be it conventional or reverse, there is nowhere to hide as a batter. As the commentators often say, ‘you are never in in England.’
Brett Lee, one of the fastest bowlers in the history of the game and arguably Australia’s fastest ever, bowling on the famous Perth wicket at the WACA
“Brett Lee at the WACA” by ForwardDefensive is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0
So when the conditions are this arduous and challenging, it is inevitable that the quality of cricket on display will be exceptional if the quality of the players is also present on both sides. Therefore, when a player does well in any of these conditions, they are rightly lauded for their efforts and continue to be praised for years to come.
Yet, the same is not always true when reflecting on performances in the other Test-playing nations’ conditions, some of which are not too dissimilar to those found in India, Australia, and England.
After all, this is international cricket. Results involving, and taking place in, the ‘Big 3’ countries count, but there is a much bigger picture to look at.
Is the perceived and apparent ‘lack of quality’ of the ‘non-Big 3’ something that stems from their home conditions?
Test cricket is at its richest when all Test-playing nations are competitive.
Nonetheless, the quick and often brash or brazen judgement of teams outside of the ‘Big 3’ and their perceived uncompetitive nature is what routinely raises the question, ‘is Test cricket dying?’
How often do we hear pundits or media outlets label certain countries outside of the ‘Big 3’ as ‘poor’? How often do we hear the media berate the facilities, the infrastructure, and the cricket boards associated with nations outside of the ‘Big 3’?
Or how often do we come across articles or conversations that question why a country no longer produces world-class cricketers?
And how often do we all, at times without even realising, entertain conversations where we disregard a player’s credentials because of some form of a subconscious bias? This usually takes the form of comments like ‘they scored all their runs in X – it needs to be taken with a grain of salt because it is so easy to bat there’ or ‘you have to be careful praising player Y, their stats are padded because they play team X a lot at home. Imagine if we played there as often as that, we would win everything and break all the records’.
While these can be valid arguments in the right context, and while there might be a shred of truth to these judgements here and there, it occasionally can feel like the same standards do not always apply when there are discussions involving the ‘Big 3’.
Sri Lankan pitches offer ample spin just like in India. South African pitches have always been fast and bouncy, akin to Australia. New Zealand conditions often see the ball hoop around corners, something seen regularly in England.
Perhaps the reason why the conditions across the ‘non-Big 3’ are not viewed the same is the fact that the home teams themselves, in terms of individual skill, are not held in as high esteem as the ‘Big 3’ – something I do not agree with.
Just take a look at the likes of Sri Lanka’s Kamindu Mendis (who currently averages 91.27 in Test cricket and is the 3rd fastest to 1000 Test runs) and Pathum Nissanka, both of whom have come off successful tours of England in 2024.
New Zealand’s Rachin Ravindra is set to be the Kiwi’s ‘next big thing’. Looking elegant with bat in hand as most left handers inevitably do, he has made runs at home but also in India in 2024.
South Africa’s David Bedingham, while still very inexperienced, has shown glimpses of what he can do in the few Test matches he has played in, including a fruitful campaign against New Zealand away from home in 2024.
Is Test cricket dying? Not while Kagiso Rabada is still around. Rabada became the quickest man in history to 300 Test match wickets, and continues to be one of the world’s premier fast bowlers in a variety of conditions
“12 13 Man of the Match” by ForwardDefensive is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0
Pakistan still have the likes of Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan, who on their day can rival anyone, as well as an array of newcomers. Their most prominent young gun is perhaps Saud Shakeel, whose mature and carefully constructed 134 helped Pakistan win the series against England in 2024 when the match was precariously poised for the hosts.
All of these players look like they will be genuine forces in the years to come – so long as they have a sufficient number of Test matches in all conditions come their way to prove their mettle.
And let us not forget about bowlers such as Kagiso Rabada, who just picked up his 300th Test wicket for South Africa. Among bowlers reaching this milestone in the history of the game, Rabada sits at the top in terms of the fewest balls needed (just 11,817 balls), as well as a career strike rate of around 39, the lowest ever.
So, it is clear that skill and talent is not the issue.
Moreover, the statistics these players (and others who have come before from the ‘non-Big 3’) have accrued cannot be achieved simply by playing well in just one set of conditions – particularly given the fact that the ‘non-Big 3’ play so few Tests overall compared with the ‘Big 3’.
Objectively, a strong case can be made to show that the ‘Big 3’ have still not cracked consistently winning against the ‘non-Big 3’, especially overseas
Based on the rhetoric put out to us by some pundits, and the views propagated within the fandom, one would think the ‘Big 3’ remain unbeatable outside of their backyards in addition to being unassailable at home – but the numbers paint a different picture.
Analysing the data can be an interesting exercise to carry out in sport. Depending on how you ‘cut the data’, the story can change – sometimes dramatically. And based on how you ‘cut the data’, you might be able to generate a different message which conforms to your overall, personal views.
Very often we manipulate the data with a variety of filters to restrict the outputs. These filters can wildly skew the outcome either in favour of the subject of the analysis, or against it.
Sometimes, it is best to zoom out and observe the bigger picture when seeking common trends.
We discussed in Part 1 how some of the showpiece series involving the ‘Big 3’ – the Ashes, the BGT, and the Pataudi and the Anthony de Mello trophies – have lacked a genuine competitive edge in the 21st century due to their difficulties in adapting adequately and quickly to overseas conditions.
To flesh out the story further, here are some interesting facts to consider regarding the ‘Big 3’ against the ‘non-Big 3’ over the last 15 years or so:
India
- Yet to win a series in South Africa
- Not won a series in New Zealand since 2009
- Lost to New Zealand in the inaugural World Test Championship (WTC) final in 2021 (played in England)
- Lost the series at home to New Zealand in 2024 (the first home series loss for India since 2012/13)
England
- Not won a series in the West Indies since 2004
- Not won a series in New Zealand since 2007/08
- Lost the series to Pakistan away in 2012 and in 2015 (both played in the United Arab Emirates)
- Lost the series at home to South Africa in 2012, Sri Lanka in 2014, and New Zealand in 2021
- Drew the series at home against Pakistan in 2016 and 2018
- Lost the series to Pakistan away in 2024
Australia
- Not won a series in Sri Lanka since 2011
- Lost the series at home to South Africa in 2012/13 and 2016/17
- Lost the series to Pakistan away in 2014 (played in the United Arab Emirates)
- Lost the series to South Africa away in 2018
Outside of full series wins, we even recently saw the West Indies win a remarkable Test against Australia at the Gabba – something of a fortress for the home team. Importantly, this also saw West Indies draw the series.
Even a draw has been a scoreline visiting teams have struggled to achieve in Australia.
Then in August-September 2024, Sri Lanka won the 3rd and final Test against England convincingly at the Oval, as well as running England close in the 1st Test at Old Trafford.
So, when people ask me ‘is Test cricket dying?‘, my answer – finances aside and based purely on the cricket played – would be ‘no‘.
If ‘conditions bias’ is removed, it is clear that the ‘non-Big 3’ poses questions that the ‘Big 3’ are still seeking answers for
In a nutshell, the scorelines over the last decade or so paint a different picture to the one we are often convinced to see by the media. Reputation and stature aside, Test cricket still remains a closely-fought contest no matter what some may have you believe.
And just like teams succumb to the ‘Big 3’ in their backyards, so too do the ‘Big 3’ in others’.
In fact, when you look at some of the scorelines in recent times between a ‘Big 3’ nation and a ‘non-Big 3’ nation (played at a ‘non-Big 3’ venue), some of the losses involving the ‘Big 3’ have been heavy, including the odd whitewash (such as India’s loss in New Zealand in 2019/20 and Australia’s loss in Sri Lanka in 2016).
Conditions across the cricketing world (which we all know substantially influence a game or series) still present a challenge to all-comers, including the ‘Big 3’. It reiterates that it still takes a tremendous amount of skill to be successful in countries outside of the ‘Big 3’, and that no player or team should be belittled simply because they do not play for the ‘Big 3’ or participate in the marquee series such as the Ashes or the BGT.
But why do such hopeful and positive takes always appear short-lived within cricketing circles? And why do the conversations all too frequently revert back to the narrative that asks the question ‘is Test cricket dying?’
Is it because sometimes the teams outside of the ‘Big 3’ find themselves in long stretches of diminishing returns? For example, until their series victory over England in 2024, the Pakistan team had not won a home series since 2021, which led to a lot of doom-mongering regarding the well-being of Test cricket in Pakistan and beyond.
Perhaps this has something to do with it.
Saud Shakeel played a key role in breaking Pakistan’s dry spell at home since 2021
“1 37 Saud Shakeel” by Dave Morton is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
However, we must also remember that this is Test cricket’s nature, even for the best of teams. It was not that long ago that one of the ‘Big 3’ – England – who recently have been credited for reviving Test cricket by some were coming off a nightmarish run themselves with just 1 win in 17 Tests.
This is just part of the gig, and one of Test cricket’s absolutes. As dynasties emerge, nations will bask in the glow of success as the team makes their way to the summit. However, once over that peak, the glory days slowly dwindle in number. Players get older, and the mental and physical wear and tear of Test cricket take a toll on the individuals and the team.
Evidence of this does not mean that the answer to the question ‘is Test cricket is dying?‘ is ‘yes‘, nor should it prompt conversations that ‘Test cricket will never be the same again’. It just means that one season is concluding, setting the stage for the next cohort of Test hopefuls to create a new legacy of their own.
To me, the cricketing community’s pessimistic tone towards the future of Test cricket beyond the ‘Big 3’ lies in the amount of Test cricket the ‘non-Big 3’ receives per year. It is the uphill battle they face in maintaining consistency with team selection and performance from series to series – particularly when the Test calendars for these nations are barren.
Without volume, it will be difficult and tiresome for the ‘non-Big 3’ to repeatedly convince the masses of their quality, a position I believe they should never have been put in.
To compound matters further and exacerbate the fears that Test cricket is dying, the presence of undeniably lucrative incentives beckon from the sidelines. T20 franchise leagues continue to shift the priorities of the top players and discourage them from taking up new national/central contracts: Trent Boult and Quinton de Kock have been notable examples.
Where can Test cricket go from here?
By pulling some of the numbers as shown above, I hope you can see that all teams still have it in them to beat anyone, including the ‘Big 3’.
Is Test cricket dying? Based on performance alone, I would suggest ‘no’.
An objective eye suggests that things are not all doom and gloom for the ‘non-Big 3’, but what more can they do to keep pushing for more Test cricket?
Catch-22: Is the onus on the ICC to strengthen Test cricket by looking beyond the ‘Big 3’, or do the players from the ‘non-Big 3’ first have a responsibility to keep staking their claim for more Test cricket?
Visualising a more inclusive Test landscape is easy. Executing it in a somewhat tangibly realistic manner within business and financial parameters is where the scenario becomes a Catch-22. While I wish Test cricket was not in this position, the reality of the situation needs to be acknowledged.
Should the ICC attempt to create a more equal and equitable playing field across the board to allow the ‘non-Big 3’ to show more regularly they have what it takes to compete with the ‘Big 3’?
Or, do the players across the ‘non-Big 3’ now have an initial responsibility to display their prowess, to challenge, and to beat the ‘Big 3’ consistently (in whatever few Tests come their way) to try and sway decision-makers at the ICC?
Players from the ‘non-Big 3’ nations appear to fall on a spectrum with regards to their views on this.
South African fast-bowling superstar, Kagiso Rabada, has voiced in recent times that players do have a responsibility to earn more Test matches by performing well routinely.
From someone as accomplished as Rabada, this stance is admirable – especially as Rabada’s ability to trouble the world’s best has never been in question.
The only drawback to this argument is the indirect impact having a low volume of Tests to play might have in trying to bring about sustained success.
Success in Test cricket obviously requires exceptional players at the top of their game, and the more players you have like this in your team, the greater the chances you will win as a team.
But another contributing factor to sustained success, which sometimes goes under the radar, is the regularity with which you play. Your team may boast players that stack up against the greats, but if you hardly get an opportunity to string together games and series, any stretch of good form will be hard to capitalise on.
Current West Indies captain, Kraigg Brathwaite, strongly felt this was impeding the growth and output of his team – something he openly stated in Australia after their famous Gabba win and again in England.
Kraigg Brathwaite, captain of the West Indies Men’s Test team, has been vocal about the lack of consistent cricket for his team and those outside of the ‘Big 3’
“Kraigg Brathwaite batting at Perth Stadium, First Test Australia versus West Indies, 2 December 2022 02” by Calistemon is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
His teammate and ex-captain, Jason Holder, also lamented the fact that the modern cricketing calendar is too congested and cluttered, something that will eventually cause Test cricket to die.
Holder also stated that the overwhelming financial power the ‘Big 3’ has makes it less likely for “smaller territories”, such as the West Indies, to “compete”.
South Africa’s Simon Harmer addressed the big elephant in the room, Test cricket’s lack of profitability outside of the ‘Big 3’ and the subsequent financial lures of T20 franchise cricket for players to make a living.
Harmer additionally highlighted the lopsided nature of fixtures with the ‘Big 3’ playing a disproportionately higher number of Tests, something he acknowledged was testing the motivation of players to pursue the longest format.
It is unclear what the best way forward is. For the time being, all the ‘non-Big 3’ can do is continue to back up their good performances whenever they can.
Restructuring the WTC and its points system
The current structure of the WTC has been met with scepticism.
From the disparity in the number of matches each team plays during each cycle, to the one-off, sudden death nature of the final (when all other contests in the lead up are in the form of full series), the inherent lack of uniformity and consistency within the WTC’s framework has appeared bereft of cricketing and competitive logic.
This is especially pertinent given that the WTC was intended to serve as a standardised competition for all nations with a singular prize at the end of it all.
At the time of writing this, India and Australia are in pole positions to reach the final of the 2023-2025 WTC cycle, while Sri Lanka, South Africa, and New Zealand all have an outside chance of making the final too.
However, the ‘Big 3’ have played more matches in total (with England playing almost double, and in some cases more than double, the number of matches compared with the ‘non-Big 3’).
To account for this lopsided distribution of fixtures, the ‘points percentage system’ was introduced at the outset. Simply put, this is a metric used to rank the teams based on the percentage of points won by each team per game from the total points available to them – a win is worth a total of 12 points, a tie is worth 6 points, and a draw is worth 4 points.
However, while this does level things out in one sense – that is, in a strictly mathematical and statistical sense – it still does not help the ‘non-Big 3’ in terms of the benefits of routine and cadence that come with playing Test cricket regularly.
With consistent game time comes consistency in selection, planning, and subsequently performance, all of which are crucial when playing against the stronger teams. The more you play, the more chances you have to identify deficiencies and refine them, and the more opportunities you have to hone your strengths and strategy – both as an individual and as a team.
So even though the ‘points percentage system’ has brought about a fairer contesting ground in terms of the pure numbers, the low volume of Tests played by the ‘non-Big 3’ is still to their detriment in terms of their overall development opportunities and trajectories.
At various points during this cycle, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and South Africa have regularly found themselves ahead of England in the table – including at the time of writing this – underlying their consistency in whatever Tests have come their way.
I believe it stands to reason that they would be more than capable of backing up and even improving upon these standings should they receive more fixtures in the Test arena.
And as mentioned previously, the winner of the inaugural WTC in 2021 was New Zealand, a side always described as a ‘small resource/talent pool’ with an uncanny ability to ‘punch above their weight’. This image of New Zealand as a cricketing nation is far too outdated, in my honest opinion, given their sustained performances across formats over the last 15-20 years.
That said, if the Test-playing nations outside of the ‘Big 3’ continue to be starved of Test matches, their claims to be as competitive as the rest will always be shunned, and their impressive exploits forgotten.
So the concern is not so much that the quality of cricket played by the ‘non-Big 3’ is ‘poor’, but rather the low volume of cricket they get each year to prove they can be just as competitive as the ‘Big 3’.
There has been talk of a 2-tier WTC and rationales for this. No matter which way it falls, a focus must be placed on fostering a more equal and equitable playing environment in terms of the number of matches played per team leading up to the final.
Photo by Vladimir Solomianyi on Unsplash
The dedicated fund to lift the ‘non-Big 3’ provides a glimmer of hope that the ‘Big 3’ wants Test cricket to thrive as a whole again
Financially, there is no doubt the ‘Big 3’ will continue to call the shots and benefit the most for the foreseeable future.
However, news of a proposed, dedicated fund aimed at strengthening Test cricket outside of the ‘Big 3’ has renewed some hope in those who champion the format.
In August 2024, it was announced that the ICC, alongside the BCCI, Cricket Australia, and the England and Wales Cricket Board, were working together to put aside a central fund with the aim of having a minimum, standardised match fee – reported to be approximately US $10,000 – for all players.
The full, ‘Big 3’-backed fund is expected to be around US $15 million. While not official just yet, the goal is to have this initiative signed off before the end of 2024 so it can come into effect in 2025.
Only time will tell if this will be the start of something more, but for now, it is a sign that an equitable future for Test cricket is still very much in the minds of the ICC and the ‘Big 3’.
Interestingly, there is one element that could be overlooked and one which might need to be considered – national pride.
South Africa’s Simon Harmer, when discussing the likelihood of Test cricket’s demise, stated that the notion of the ICC subsidising Test cricket for the ‘non-Big 3’, in terms of contracts and staging costs, felt like “charity”.
So while the overwhelming response to the proposed fund has been met with optimism, it will be interesting to monitor how the boards and players will eventually react to receiving a monetary ‘handout’ when the time actually comes.
Is Test cricket dying? No, not yet...
Based on what was discussed about the scorelines among the ‘Big 3’ in Part 1, and a snapshot of the accomplishments of the ‘non-Big 3’ against the ‘Big 3’ explored here, I believe that, in terms of quality, Test cricket is not dying.
I feel that it is the lack of an objective eye and the prevalence of recency bias which often go hand in hand that tarnish the reputation of the ‘non-Big 3’. This has led to the formulation of somewhat incomplete narratives which have diminished their capabilities, leaving many feeling embittered.
Now, I will reiterate, none of this is a dig at the ‘Big 3’.
They have produced some of Test cricket’s most ‘watchable’, most competitive, and most memorable series. And on the whole, it would not be inaccurate to say that, at present, they are Test cricket’s strongest sides given the consistency in results and stability in player availability/team selection over a long period of time.
None of that is in question.
But Test cricket is a richer game when everyone is involved.
Although the current WTC structure and points system is a contentious topic, the performances of Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and South Africa in the 2023-2025 cycle have reinforced the fact that the ‘non-Big 3’ deserve a seat at the Test cricket table.
Not only that, but they have what it takes to beat anyone if given the chance.
Players from these countries have been increasingly outspoken on this matter. With credible performances to back them up, could this stir the winds of change for future scheduling with an eye to a more equitable Test match calendar?
Let us hope so. If it does happen, it will not be an overnight affair. It will take time, understanding, and mutual cooperation – a trinity that will be tough to capture in such a cut-throat sporting business.
But, if Test matches can slowly become the ultimate prize all players aspire towards again, regardless of where they are from, it will be Test cricket itself that reaps the benefits.
In the meantime, we should enjoy watching and supporting the ‘non-Big 3’. I mean, let us not forget moments such as:
- Sri Lanka beating South Africa in 2019 to become the first Asian team to win a series in South Africa
- Pakistan beating Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka in 2023
- Bangladesh beating Pakistan in Pakistan in 2024, their first away series win outside of the West Indies and Zimbabwe
The ‘Big 3’ may be creating history with blockbuster series such as the Ashes and the BGT, but we should not take anything away from the ‘non-Big 3’ who continue to create history of their own.
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.
I don’t think test cricket is necessarily dying at this stage. I guess that a lot more flare has come into this particular version of cricket.