Test Match Special - Is Test cricket thriving or simply surviving?

Episode Date: June 15, 2025

Simon Mann is joined by author and cricket journalist Tim Wigmore, BBC sport writer Tim Abraham and lead commentator Jonathan Agnew to reflect on how Test Cricket has evolved and what the future could look like. They debate the calendar, competition of other formats and the influence that India have on the game. Plus the team assess the financial situation on the viability of the game.

BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, Podcasts. This is the TMS podcast from BBC Radio 5 Live. Hello, I'm Simon Mann and welcome to the Test Match Special podcast. It's almost the 150th anniversary of Test Cricket, so we're going to take a look at the state that the format is in. In this episode, we'll hear from author and cricket journalist Tim Wigmore, BBC sport writer Tim Abraham and lead commentator Jonathan Agnew to reflect on how test Cricket has evolved and what the future could look like.

You're listening to the TMS podcast from BBC Radio 5 Live. Well, let's start. What state is Test Cricket in at the moment? How long have we got? What sort of state is it in? Go on, Agers. You can go first. Well, I mean, it seems to me that we've been having this discussion for not just years, but decades. I mean, dear old Christopher, my predecessor, was writing about the future of test cricket years ago. you look at the numbers and you know from the last cycle two year cycle

my math is hopeless but I think I'm right 138 tests were played in the cycle before this and then you tot up the number of test matches that you played in this cycle it's actually exactly the same 138 test matches if my math is correct I think the interest in test cricket

is as keen as ever I think we do make a mistake and have made a mistake over the years and with first class cricket too and not just here but in Australia where interest in first class cricket has been judged by the people who are actually sitting there and watching it at the grounds which as we know is an absolute drop in the ocean

compared to people who follow it online who watch it on computers who have a genuine love of first class cricket but just because they're not there sitting at the grounds you know you look at some of the test matches and the old highlights from the 1970s there was nobody there watching test cricket there are more people watching now more people here at Lords today

than I guess they were for a number of those test matches that were played in the 1970s it's just up against a battle isn't it and the people really who are responsible for this are sitting in that in that very nice box over to our right in the grandstand they've been out there sunning themselves or the sun was out sitting on the balcony

the administrators the administrators of the game they're the ones who have to take on board the responsibility for for maintaining test cricket. And for too many of them, it's easy just to flog another T20 white ball tournament off to the highest bidding television company and stack that up

and squeeze and squeeze and squeeze test cricket. And they're the people who are responsible, I believe, in those people who are the kids now who are trying to get into cricket, if those kids, the youngsters, five, eight-year-old, ten-year-old, just getting into the game, if they grow up to believe that cricket is T20

then that's a crime really because we all know that test cricket is so much more interesting so much more depth to it there's so much more to test cricket than a T20 game yes you can get you know as many last ball thrillers or last over thrillers in T20 as you like but funny enough they seem rather like the same one that we saw two days ago or five days ago the players might be wearing different colours

but test cricket has got so much more depth to it than that. And they are sitting over there. Those are responsible for maintaining what is genuinely, I believe, a very strong interest in test cricket. But the more you talk something down, the more people start to believe that there is a problem. And of course there is a problem with the scheduling and the numbers of games. And teams like West Indies and New Zealand, the World Test Champions. Here we are watching San Africa who played the fewest games in the last cycle equal with Bangladesh are top of the table. There are things that are difficult to work out but they're trying to make test cricket relevant and mean something by this this

competition but I think the people who understand cricket love test cricket. There were some who like T20 and so on but they I think most people who love cricket do appreciate that we are fortunate to have different forms of the game but it's just Unfortunately, T20 particular has been an easy sell. And so that's what the administrators have been doing. We've got two Tims here, so we have to be quite disciplined on this. Tim Wigmore. So the history of test cricket in many ways is of people worrying about the future of test cricket.

So the first reference I could find to journalists moaning that players are just playing for money now, not for the pride in a shirt, was in 1884. Two years after the hatchings. Yeah. So we have to, so that, yeah, we're sort of taking a step back. Yeah, people have always worried about the future of test cricket and the, you know, how viable it is. So in a sense, these are not new problems, but the, the question is more urgent than ever now before because they're not just shorter formats, but actually just different sources of entertainment, you know, test cricket is actually in competition with, it's in competition with Netflix, it's in

competition with everything. And I think there is a real need to get a more coherent structure. And actually, I know there's a tendency can be to sort of, near at the World Test Championship. Actually, you know, that is, it's such an important invention because for the first time, actually, all countries have a pinnacle to aspire to. And talking with Kane Williamson in the book, you know, he said, you know, winning the World Test Championship, it felt like when we won the World Cup. And that's, you know, that's brilliant. So you need all countries to aspire to that. And actually, South Africa have taken, you know, they've had a great start here, but they've really treated this as a final. So I think the administrators need to,

which they've continually failed. I mean, the first big three was 1909, Australia, England, South Africa. Here at Lords were setting up the game and actually excluding then USA, Argentina, who were very strong. So administrators throughout history have actually failed to think about the broader needs of the game, and that's what they need to start doing now. They need to actually make test cricket.

That pathway open for enough teams that when you go and see South Africa and West Indies, you know you're seeing their full-strength team. And we're seeing, you know, We saw Nicholas Puran, for example, Heinrich Classen, two really top players retiring this week from international cricket. So you need to have a system actually with clear windows when you have maybe three, three week periods of year.

It doesn't need to be huge amounts. But even that, you go and you know there'll be test cricket on, there'll be nothing else. And actually what we've begun to see with World Test Championship, which is brilliant, is when you see multiple tests at the same time in different countries, actually create a sort of general narrative. You have three tests at the same time, I mean, you had that amazing day last year when England won in Hyderabad and West Indies beat Australia at the Gab on the same day.

And in a way, the narrative of one added to one from the other. So actually, I think in a sense, and I just look at the game itself. I think the actual game test cricket itself has never been probably as exciting as it is now. So the product of, like, is there is there to sell. And there is this sort of fatalism. I think fatalism is very dangerous, so we don't need to be fatalistic about the future. Tim, Abraham, have your say. It's a tricky one. I think Test cricket is a case of the kind of haves and the have-nots.

At the moment there's the big three that financially they're in very strong position. They kind of call the shots on test cricket. I think for the have-nots, it's a different challenge. The word that I've kept coming across is cross-subsidisation, which I'm not a Harvard graduate, but even I understand that T20 cricket is kind of funding test cricket. And I suppose the real question is how long can that be the case? When will the power brokers who make these decisions decide actually this product which costs this amount of money and doesn't make any money isn't sustainable but but this one that does make all the money let's just stick with that one and I think there could be a decline based on that unless

perhaps the revenue share model of the world game is kind of given some serious consideration yeah just but just to jump in on that I think a lot of cricket fans are fans of all cricket and they're very busy they can maybe only go to you know a day of test cricket a year, not even that, but actually when they go to a T20 game or a hundred game, they're very happy for a few quid of their ticket to go to, you know, the five-day game. They're very happy for that. So I think administrators, basically, there's more money in cricket than ever before. So as long as there's some will, there is a, there's plenty to keep all formats alive together.

And actually, T20, like anything, it benefits from scarcity and stuff. So actually, it's not in T20's interest for that to be the only format. you know these formats actually they enrich each other and actually it should be a real strength for cricket to have these three distinct formats it is a great shame though because i remember when t20 really started up i remember writing a piece or saying something pompous about the fact that that t20 cricket if managed properly should fund the game if it was just kept as as it was when it first started up that that should have funded test cricket and used to fund test cricket but of course it's actually consuming test cricket or it gives the impression it's consuming test cricket it's this It's been allowed to get out of control because it is an easy sell. It's an easy thing to do. And our board selling August out suggests that there's a pretty reasonable chance.

I'd have thought that the IPL, for instance, will become like a Formula One annual, you know, go around the various parts of the world. They're buying up franchises here and there, aren't they? I suspect August before too many years will be, you know, IPL Europe or IPL UK or something. He's all part of the grand scheme. And it'll just, it's, it's, it's, it's just gnawing away at this, at test cricket. And you feel it's gnawing away all of the time at it. And I think still, we're in a position. And again, it was a big talking point a few years ago about the players.

And that's where Virat Koli's comment is so, is so important. I think that the good players, and I mean the good players, they recognize that they are properly tested and properly challenged in test cricket. And I think that those top players would still say that test cricket is what really matters, really what matters to them. Well, let's hear what Virac Koli said last week, having retired from test cricket, the moment was after winning the IPL for the first time. He was speaking to Matthew Hayden. You know, this moment is right up there with the best moments I've had in my career.

But it still marks five levels under test cricket. That's how much I value test cricket. And that's how much I love test cricket. So I would just urge the youngsters coming through to treat that format with respect because if you perform in test cricket you walk around anywhere in the world people look you in the end and shake your hand

and say, well done, you played the game really well. So if you want to earn respect in world cricket all over, take up test cricket, give your heart and soul to it and when you walk out with wonders the other side then you gain respect to the cricket world with legends like yourself. So that was Virat Cody speaking last week after RCB won the IPL. It's got actually quite a thing to say on that sort of stage, wasn't it? You know, the IPL, RCB winning the first time 18 years,

actually Coney using that platform to pump up the tyres of test cricket. It's a massive statement, isn't it? And yes, doing it in India and everything else. It was a massive statement. And I think this, well, I made the point earlier. I think, I think still quality players respect and know that test cricket is the ultimate challenge. And there haven't been, I mean, there are some that have drawn off. But, I mean, the ones so far who you mentioned there, Klaas and poor, and they're decent players. you know if they're not playing test cricket anymore I don't think would necessarily will miss that but people like Coley when they speak out and say hey this is this is what it's all

about that's when people listen yeah I think there's some there's some collective kind of efforts that need to take place perhaps in terms of incentivising players to play test cricket you know that's probably got to come from the ICC that has been taught previously about setting up a world test fund whether that's directly to associations to bank roll the actual taking place of it or or providing more of a lucrative option for players who choose franchise cricket ahead of it. I mean, even this week we saw Nicholas Puran step away from playing white ball cricket for West Indies. He's never played a test match, but stepped away from playing white ball cricket for West Indies

because franchise cricket is more of a lucrative offering. So I guess trying to make test cricket incentivised financially for players is going to be crucial for that survival of the future. Is that the only way really? Let's talk about the kind of finances of the game and perhaps some of the deep. is that actually the only way really to keep test cricket right at the sort of center of the that the cricket calendar if you do have a a test match fund and I mean has that been tried has that been thought about before I think you'd say Greg Barclay so he thought about it but didn't really think that was a viable option

yeah Greg Barclay said it's it's kind of been it's been background discussions in in terms of producing that fund so Greg but we should just say who Greg Barclay is Greg Barclay's the ex ICC chairman yeah so he's you know there's been some discussions behind the scenes to get this world test fund up and go up in running but but it hasn't come to fruition yet it didn't come to fruition on his watch so it's whether the stakeholders going forward are going to be engaged enough on that to bring it because the costs of touring are so prohibitively high and obviously you know empowering boards to want to host test cricket is is a difficult thing to kind of do because in your piece that's going to be on the

BBC Sport website lady you mentioned I mentioned it and in commentary earlier actually but this West Indies Johnny Grave was saying there's one player that cost them twenty five thousand dollars to get just get one player from the West Indies to Australia for a tour yeah I mean this this is the thing with with you know again the have-nots of test cricket West Indies being a case in point and and Johnny Grave said it cost them you know it cost West Indies two million dollars to go to Australia for a tour of which they didn't see a single penny in in return So it's how do you address that balance?

We saw earlier in the summer Zimbabwe came over for a test against England. And England, the ECB, you know, stumped up a tour fee for that. I think that's probably going to need more of that to see the middle ranking test nations, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies have the financial backing to want to continue playing test cricket. I think part of the problem also, I mean you mentioned New Zealand and West Indies, they've got a very similar problem in that they've got terrible time, time, time differences for television revenue, very difficult for West Indies to sell their rights

because it's out of hours and similar for New Zealand. And that's, as we know, where all the money is these days. Well, yeah, but that's why you need more of a kind of a wholesale approach, yeah, thinking what's in the broader interest. So until 2001, when anyone came, and when anyone was on a tour, so when in the cities came to England or whatever, they would receive a touring fee, generally worth about a fifth of what England would earn from that series, which actually means the away team has got an incentive because the problem now, we talk about the money from the ICC, which is one part of it, but the other side is just what countries earn from their home broadcasting revenue. So England, about

15, 20 times as much West Indies do from their home broadcasting revenue, which effectively means that England and West Indians have these tours that Ingo to West Indians, we're seeing to go to England return. But actually, when England hosts West Indies, they're earning 15 times more than what West Indies do when they host England. Then there's, you know, they host England. economics are completely skewed so you need to you need to share the money around more we obviously talk about what india get you know england actually get about 10 million pounds a year more than where cindies do from iCC as well and this is this is that right this is kind of like the central icc or funding based on based on television based on what they earn for world cups

basically yeah and so maybe we need to be a position where the iCC actually takes more control of the world test championship it says actually if you're if you're you know player and you feature in it We give you a minimum wage per game or whatever, and that way it should never be in any player's financial interest to stop playing test cricket. And that's the key that you need to make sure teams are at full strength. And I suppose on a cost point of view, the other side of the debate, which I think is a fair debate to have now, is there time to have for a serious discussion on four-day tests. You know, right in the history of test cricket, it's amazing. Actually, what we think of a five-day test is actually quite a recent occurrence. three-day tests in England and stuff.

So having four, we've had four-day tests before, we've had a timer test. So having four-day tests is not inconsistent with the history of the game and actually what you're doing, because I think you need to create, give more teams a chance to develop narratives. So I think when, say, New Zealand plays South Africa,

that should be a three test series of four days each and actually three tests times four is better than two tests times five. And maybe in the World Test Championship, the current model which is very flawed because everyone plays a different number of games. I like to see the World Test Championship, even within the existing structure, which is everyone plays six series over a two-year cycle.

Or you could just say everyone plays those six series. Each series is three tests of four days each, three points for a win, one point for a draw, very simple. You know, you don't need a degree in algebra to be able to work out the point system. And suddenly everyone's playing the same number of games. And I think that would also be a really good step because the World Test Championship is really important. And now it's not really big in the best chance because it's just so confusing.

Do India pay Pakistan in your model? Well, no, so my utopian model, yes, but pragmatically, I think you could improve the World Test Championship within what it, within the kind of broad structure, it already is massively without India playing Pakistan. We love that to happen, but it's not going to happen. And also, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good because we talk about, you know, everyone playing everyone.

Yes, it's lovely. But actually, in most American sports, that doesn't happen. In the championship group stages, it doesn't happen. So I don't think it's the end of the world. As long as you have the knockouts, as the title is decided on the pitch. And actually, I think the also championship final is a great concept. I'd like to see actually more knockout test cricket.

So, say, over the cycle, why not have the top team who wins, you know, the league stage goes straight to the final and you have second team plays third in a knockout game. If there was, you know, if, I don't know, South Africa had played in Europe a week before at Edgemiston or something, that would have created more narrative for this final in turn. The key man for me is Jay Shah, you know, people I think will know who he is now, the Indian administrator, son of one of the most senior Indian politicians, he's now the boss at the ICC and there was a sort of collective, almost like a groan when he got that job because it seems as being India controlling everything, but actually, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing because he knows how it all works. If he's serious about his job, if he's serious, which, which does have surely to be protecting and maintaining test cricket as well as everything else. But he has to, that has to be his major brief.

Well, he's got to step up and do it, hasn't he? I mean, he failed, and I know things obviously subsequent went wrong with between India and Pakistan, but he failed to resolve that issue for the champions trophy with India, obviously, going to Dubai and refusing to go to Pakistan. The recent problems hadn't happened before that had happened. And I know talking to the England, the ECB administrators, they really think, thought Jay Shah might be able to sort that out because of his political influence through his father in India but he failed. So let's see how he gets on with this because he has got he's got so much power, he's got so much reach, he's got so much opportunity knowing how the Indian system

works, the access that he has. He does have it in his power to make sure that test cricket does properly not to survive but thrive. So I take a view that actually I I I I I'd rather welcome Jay Shah to it because you feel that if there's anybody with the background that he has, who has a chance really of sorting this out, it's probably him. Without turning this into the Jay Shah Appreciation Society, I spoke in the course of writing the piece, I spoke to people who are quite close to him to try and get an understanding of his views on test cricket, and he is a fan of it. It is something that he cherishes and values.

So I suppose that does at least give us a source of encouragement towards his own perspective upon it. Yeah, and he knows. I mean, India make a lot of money out of test cricket. Well, I was going to come to that, actually. Well, I was going to come to how much money India make from the game, and how much of the pie that they take. Go on, I guess.

Well, I was going to say, I mean, the notion that India itself doesn't value test cricket is wrong. They do. They make a huge amount of money out of test cricket. You know, the adverts are running five days, well, and all the build-up shows and after shows and everything else. I don't know the precise figures obviously but they do make enough money out of test cricket for it to be more than just viable for them but certainly to keep their interest in it alive so it is not true to say that India is not interested in test cricket they are it's just easy when you see the

IPL kind of consuming everything else going on to suggest that they're not but they but they are just on the economics then I mean this pie that it's shared out from the TV rights. I mean, they've got Jay Shah, who's head of the ICC, and India taking the vast majority of the money. India's get 38% of the ICC's total.

38%. How much is that in dollars? About $2.40 million per year. And Australia and England. So then, yeah, England is about 40 million US a year, and then that kind of trickles down. And then you have, yeah, Westonies on 27 or so.

And then it goes down to Zimbabwe on 13 million. This is from the ICC. But just explain, well, if you can, the justification for India having a huge amount more than everybody else. So the justification is broadly that, you know, most of the money comes from India because that central pot from the ICC revenue, most of that comes from actually the broadcasting rights in India. And so that's the justification for it. That's also the justification for why. England, Australia, say, get more than South Africa or New Zealand, which you could also say. Maybe they shouldn't get that either.

Without opponents, I don't get their money, do they? Exactly. So there's a point where actually this is enlightened self-interest, really, because you're getting to a point where England are a little bit worried about, you know, what they do in these every other summer when neither Australia nor India are coming. Actually, you remember, yeah, 90s, early 2000, England, South Africa was a box office series and it was five tests and stuff. So actually, you need to be building up the opponents.

And it's a very, yeah, it's a depressing short-sum attitude, which has governed for too long, which is, you know, different administrators almost fight each other for an extra few million dollars here and there. When actually, actually in South Africa, that money always cities, that money goes further than it does in England, and suddenly you have England's matches being more attractive,

you also have England's matches potentially lasting longer at home, and then their broadcasting rights are going to be worth more as well. So you need administrators to take a step back and not think just about the next 18 months, but actually think, well, in 10, 15 years, we need to be playing attractive opponents, and it's in our interest. So it was good that England played

paid Zimbabwe a fee to come this year, but they should do that when West Indies comes, South Africa, come and so on, because the reciprocal basis of tours, I mean, that works, you know, for the Ashes, that works really, really well, because England and Australia earn similar amounts from hosting each other, so it works great, but when England hosts Africa or New Zealand or West Indies, they're making far more than the other way around. So these should all be addressed, because, yeah, players still want to play test cricket, but players, if they're being set up to fail that is that is an issue as well and because also test cricket it's not just test

cricket to have a good test cricket team you need a good first-fell system and yeah as as as Tim said it's certainly in West Indies that costs a huge amount as well so you need to be thinking about the the broader pool of players and how you're developing and how you're creating a pathway to go on and and do well in test cricket rather than turning up with your hand behind your back it'd be good if if there was a sort of a collective responsibility for test cricket wouldn't it So test cricket is something tangible, if you like, and that all the money raised through test cricket or international cricket, we can move on to that in a second probably,

it goes into a pot. And whether you're India, whether you're West India, whether you're England, you are playing test cricket and you're relying on everyone else to play test cricket against you. Therefore, you're all contributing to make this thing work. therefore you divvy it up you divvy up the money that that product makes and you share it round on an equal basis right why that that's you know the fact that that it's more commercially of interest in in some countries other than others shouldn't come into it because without the

others you haven't got it can I just play devil's advocate for a moment so there'll be people listening to this and might say well look I love test cricket whatever but people don't go to watch it in the Caribbean people don't go to watch it in South Africa people don't go to watch it in Sri Lanka say and therefore if people are not going to watch it why is it keep on going you know what where's the economic sort of sense in that I mean are we actually just trying to stand on the beach and try to hold back the tide with our hands what what do you say to that I think people a lot of fans of cricket they value test cricket very highly but because it's it takes so long and they're busy with their lives

They don't necessarily have time to go to lots of days a year or to even necessarily watch day after day, especially when it's during a working week. But you still see these great moments of test cricket. They still really, they resonate beyond. So, you know, when the cities had that great win at the Gabba last year, that was a huge deal, you know, the whole, throughout the whole region. And it's not as if necessarily all those people who were excited by it were following every ball or whatever. But so there is a value there.

And I go back to it, I think people who go to a short format game of cricket, they're very happy for some of that ticket to go towards test cricket. Because actually, even for the shorter formats, actually, we've seen a game with Batsman again and again who've specialised in short format cricket. Sometimes they actually struggle and generally they benefit, their white ball game benefits to paying the Red Bull game as well. I just do think cricket, there's three distinct formats. That should be a strength, but you need administrators who are, yeah, looking about. more than short term and thinking how this all hangs together and I think the World Test Championship is a start but you need a hell of a lot more than that but there's the anticipation as well isn't there a bit of a test series there's not any other anticipation I don't think in cricket like Ignon playing Australia in the ashes like we're playing India this summer just the prospect of a test series I think that's true but also I think in India though when the IPL comes around there's a huge amount of anticipation because they have sold that tournament so well and they've and they've actually produced a fantastic product with people buying them. Look at the crowds for that.

I mean, it's a remarkable. I think people are totally invested in some of them out. They might not be as invested in some of the other T20 leagues around the world. Are those South African T20s, you know, done quite well, hasn't it? Bash, how's that doing these days? Well, that's picked up again, actually. It actually had a slump because they played too much of it. Again, that's scarcity, though, isn't it?

Yeah, I agree. No, I agree. I think less is more, totally. And so I think this is why my sense with the IPL is if they do go, sort of, you know, more teams, and it might eventually kind of fainter a bit, actually. Because T20 cricket is shallow. I mean, it is instant entertainment, but it hasn't got the depth,

it hasn't got the enduring depth that test cricket has. I was going to say one area they really could grow test cricket is some of the countries that are coming through, the islands, the kind of Zimbabwe's, Afghanistan. There's opportunities there to get them playing more test cricket. And one of the people I spoke to was Warren Dutrim, and he said, of cricket islands. and he said, you know, some of the things which you need in place for test cricket to take place,

DRS, 30 cameras at the ground, could we remove those? Could we take those away to enable test cricket to take place between, you know, those countries? Is that a fine? Reduce the cost, basically. Reduce the cost and that allows the game to still be played. You know, is Paul Stirling going to be that bothered about being given out? I mean, we would be given, bother being out given out, but can we survive without some of those luxury items that we've, we've, we've, kind of got with the big three and with with the middle ranking nations for the lower ranking nations to actually get out there and play the format but they need a strong first class if you're going to play test cricket you've got to have a strong first class structure to

be to have players who can play test cricket and you know i think it's a very debate about you know ireland for instance because the players couldn't play candy cricket anymore yeah the quality of of those players what about michael vaughan's idea of a two divisional test cricket league if you like so test cricket split into two divisions but would that work or or not yeah I mean there was a lot of talk about in 2015 so got a decade ago it shows administrators are better at talking than acting that often and I think two divisions would be a really good idea you could have say seven in division one five in division two and then you're creating narrative where you know like in Premier

League you have interest about who's gonna win it in the top and then you'd have I don't say Pakistan Bangladesh West Indies to avoid going going down I think that would be a really good model I mean you one thing you actually would need to do though you need to say this is decided on the pitch only you don't I mean there was talk about this before and there was talk of relegation exemptions for england and india in australia no that's a terrible idea you know test cricket needs to have a bit more faith in itself and say we're going to do is we're going to do it in a fair way and have a clear path and actually that would make teams a bit more accountable rather than kind of them bumming on doesn't really matter whether you come seventh or eight in the world test championship um so i think divisions would would be a good model but I think even if you don't have divisions also this championship can be

really really improved from what it is today but it needs to be funded I mean it could be the death knell of countries like West Indies or New Zealand who relegated to a second division that would the end of it you know if they'd end up playing Scotland and Ireland and the Netherlands in that for me and also the rights I mean you sell broadcasting rights over four years as you need to know I mean if England and Australia somehow you know the last time this has discussed the bottom two places were India and England, ninth and tenth, I think it was back in about 2000

when this was being discussed. I mean, can you imagine a scenario in which in which actually you don't play those big countries and you earn your, and which television company is going to buy rights if you might end up in the second division? You know, it's not as straightforward. It's not as straightforward as that. I get the appeal, I do, but I don't see how they'd come back.

I think it's about creating that sense of jeopardy, though, Aggers. I think your casual sports fans who are going to be tuning into test cricket want that sense of that sense of jeopardy of something that could happen here. Yeah, but it's affording it. If you are West Indies and you're dumped in the second division and there isn't a system to pay for that, what are they going to do? They're finished. I suppose that's where the revenue sharing comes into it.

Correct. So you have to get a revenue model in place. If you're going to have two divisions, just to make sure that the countries that go down can still exist and bounce back. Tim Abram, who in your piece, who was the previous ICC bod who said that he'd like to see if... Malcolm Speed. Malcolm Speed said he'd like... India playing China. India playing China, he said in 2007 as a test match one day, which really was kind of blue sky thinking. But if we don't, you know, if we don't create these opportunities or have these ideas, you know, if we'd invested something in China for 50, 60 years, who knows what would happen.

Okay, each of you, if I could offer you, I don't know, one or two things to improve the test match game, and we've touched on some of them already. What would it be who I put on the spot first? Go on, Tim Wigmore. Yeah, I'd have the World Test Championship. Everyone play the same number of games, and the way you do that, every series is three tests or four days each, and you're paying players from a central model, and you'll fine to have the ashes, as you just play two extra tests outside the system.

but you start from the premise that everyone in the league table will play the same number of games that count towards it and everyone can suddenly understand the test championship table and then suddenly maybe England fans are following New Zealand India because they need New Zealand to win or whatever to boost their chance of getting to the final so you create more of a sense of narrative and also by doing that a bit like you have in the Premier League

suddenly by countries, by fans being vetted in games that don't involve their own team actually that might help the broadcasting figures and the numbers who are following those other games as well. I'd say revenue sharing and four-day cricket which you kind of covered, Tim, really. I wouldn't want four days, but I think the revenue sharing is the most important thing. I mean, four-day cricket in England, you lose, I don't know, four or five hours. There's going to be a lot of draws knocking around if you're not careful.

Unless Ben Stakes is captaining the team, of course. Do we think we still be having this conversation in 10, 20, 30, or 50 years time? I hope we are, because it means that we still can. about test cricket and it's it's still fighting and that's that's what we all want is that well in the so-called gold age before you know the 1900s it's a talk about in the book people were worrying about the future of test cricket saying it's no one's coming anymore and it's dying so I suspect people will be having this conversation for a fair while when was the golden age of cricket when was

the golden age of test cricket was everyone says it was what back in the early 20th century yeah 1895 times 40 well why was it considered the golden age it was an amazing era of the evolution of batting. So you had Ranji, who was the invention of the leg glance, Victor Trumper, the first ever man scored test entry before lunch. So it was an amazing era of adventurous batting in three-day test matches often. We're an incredible era of adventurous batting now, aren't we? But the wickets were kind of, they had improved, but they were still pretty bad. So people would go out and bat and really attack. So

maybe we are in a new golden age. But no, the golden age cricket begins to look much more like it does it does today final thought to abraham yeah well i think you know test cricket is something that we we all cherish you know i suppose from a from a financial perspective what's the what's the what's the what's the price of it and what's the value of it is the is the question and you know as you know test test match special test cricket it's it's something that we all hope and yours for for a very long time on bbc sounds this is sports strangest crimes from the man who tried to buy cricket. One night, one game, one or take off,

20 US million dollars. The kidnap of a super horse. It must have been terrifying. Of course it was. How we got through a little on. An ill-advised errands changing F-1 forever. It will haunt the people involved for as long as they live. A trillion dollar takeover, which never took off.

Broadsters of this level, they will never stop. The mysterious death of a superstar cyclist. Entering the world of professional cycling was like joining the mafia. And, becoming bitter enemies and one of the biggest football clubs in the world. Betrayal, plots. We've gone beyond women's football in France.

Sports, strangest crimes. Listen on BBC Sounds.