Test cricket is in danger of being marginalised, now that the game is run by boards and financed by moguls.
If there is an eternal truth about cricket, it is this: the game is always at war with itself. But lately, the nature of the battle has changed and Test cricket is threatened.
In times gone by, the wars were about things like bowlers’ actions and fair play. The controversies about overarm bowling in the mid-1800s, ‘chucking’ in the 1960s and the ‘underarm incident’ of 1981 come easily to mind.
These were about what happened on the field. Today’s existential battles are in the boardrooms and the marketplaces of crowds, television and players’ associations. That’s why the traditional heart of the game – Test cricket – is in some trouble. It might even be in the early stages of its own demise.
Greg Chappell, legendary Australian batter and captain, believes that by 2040 there might be only six of the present 12 Test nations still playing the longest form of the game. Elsewhere, the Test game might have succumbed to competition from the T20 format, which increasingly dominates the cricketing scene.
What underlies Chappell’s forecasts is clear. Crowds in India flock to Indian Premier League (IPL) T20 matches in huge numbers, but they vary between thin and more or less adequate when India plays Test matches at home. In Australia and England, the game’s other major powers, crowds and TV ratings are generally good for Tests but almost always excellent for Big Bash T20 League and ‘The Hundred’ fixtures. Elsewhere, in the ‘lesser’ Test countries like New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa, Test crowds are routinely poor. Staging Tests in those countries loses money.
There are worrying signs that players increasingly favour T20 cricket over Tests. Most, of course, even the highly talented, will never reach the Test level but the T20 leagues give them opportunities to play professionally. Moreover, the workloads in T20 cricket are lighter and ꟷ crucially ꟷ the pay in the bigger leagues is much better than in Test cricket.
Here is the nub of the matter. It’s about money, and therefore power. Cricket is being taken over by capital, and T20 is the Trojan horse which has entered the game’s city. There was a time when cricket was run by organisations – national, regional and local – which were beholden to the bases that elected them and thus to the communities from which they had sprung. But this is no longer the case: outside the local level, boards are now dominated by business people and business mindsets. Former cricketers are few on the boards.
Meanwhile the T20 league competitions are increasingly ‘owned’ by business capital, not by cricketing organisations. In India, the owners of the IPL franchises are billionaires who have, to a degree, re-written the rules to suit the needs of short-form cricket for thrills and speed. The hitting of sixes in numbers has become the game’s currency as far as viewer excitement and satisfaction are concerned, and pitches are prepared without ‘life’ for bowlers so as to promote six-hitting.
Down Under, Cricket Australia (CA) owns and runs the BBL with the state boards, but privatising franchises is under consideration. This would open the competition up to foreign investment, and would attract overseas money. The players would be paid more, and thus Australia’s best would be encouraged to play here rather than in the better bankrolled overseas leagues. Not being able to compete on pay, CA fears, will mean the best talent will be lost to Australian audiences.
CA’s proposal is controversial. Two states, NSW and Queensland, are opposed: NSW wants to consider alternative sources of income (including gambling, itself a known problem in cricket). Meanwhile Victoria has jumped the other way, proposing that one of the Melbourne BBL franchises be privatised. It would be expected to be bought by wealthy Indian interests.
Capitalism is taking over and the boards are complicit. The moguls have the financial clout and the boards are perhaps not as focused on ‘the good of the game’ as they once were. Alternatively, the boards see the game’s health through a business lens. The input of ‘community’ and, indeed, managing cricket as both a playing and a spectator sport, has been subsumed by the need to compete in the battle for riches.
T20 franchise cricket has produced ‘rivers of gold’, which attract moguls and boards alike. Not surprisingly in this neoliberal age, market factors like crowd size and television viewership are critical: he who has the gold makes the rules.
Meanwhile Test cricket, having taken on some of the styles and norms of short-form cricket (new shots, higher scoring rates and hype-driven commentary) is arguably more watchable than it was decades ago when wars of attrition often led to boring draws between teams fearful of losing. A nadir was reached in the Ashes Tests of the 1960s: most Tests in that decade (15 of 25) were drawn. In some cases that result was inevitable not long into the match.
In the last ten years, 21 of 25 Ashes Tests have ended in definitive results. Drawn Tests in general have largely disappeared: they are now infrequent except when the weather intrudes. This is to the good but, if Chappell is correct, the rarity of inconclusive results will not be enough to save Test cricket in some countries. The T20 juggernaut will win the game’s greatest battle.
Capitalism has discovered and captured cricket’s popular short form. the IPL has negotiated a Test-less ‘window’ to protect its T20 tournament from competition and increasingly the franchise owners dictate the game’s direction. National touring teams often lack their best players, who are competing in the leagues or preparing for the next tournament. The danger is that Test cricket will become a minor part of the game and not played between the best cricketers in the countries involved.
Chas Keys is a former academic and Deputy Director General of the NSW State Emergency Service. He writes about floodplain management, climate change, the culture, ethics and politics of cricket and other matters. He is a member of the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA)