An overly packed schedule could send countries bankrupt, according to Todd Greenberg, chief of Cricket Australia.
Greenberg was recently quoted as saying countries shouldn’t be forced to play Test cricket, and that there should instead be greater investment in marquee series.
England and India’s five-match series this summer was an example of Test cricket working. Others, though, were less competitive. Australia beat the West Indies by a comfortable margin, and New Zealand had a similarly easy time against Zimbabwe.
The calendar has been packed with T20 franchise leagues and The Hundred. So how can Test cricket survive and still provide quality series, not just more of them?
Can scarcity be a good thing?
Greenberg, acknowledging that he has not been the most popular chief since taking the role in March, said scarcity is a good thing in cricket. It would lead to better quality matches, in his eyes.
The Cricket Australia chief said he didn’t know the ideal number of matches that would be played, but that Test matches should be meaningful and have jeopardy.
He is open to reviving red-ball matches in Darwin and Cairns, which last happened over 20 years ago. Australia hosted Sri Lanka in 2003 and Bangladesh in 2004. Greenberg noted that Northern Territory matches played in August removed the variable of weather.
The same debate over crammed schedules is happening in football, where many players have just played in FIFA’s rebranded Club World Cup straight after the regular European season. Some feel the season is overly saturated with fixtures, but these burgeoning calendars are what grow any sport beyond its current level.
Ticket sales, merch, opportunities for new players to debut in ‘friendlier’ competitive environments – there are many strong arguments in favour of a busy schedule. For bookmakers, the sport bet calendars are punctuated by event-specific campaigns that don’t just put the spotlight on the biggest names in any given sport, but highlight narratives, players, and teams that would typically slide under the radar during major tournaments.
The economics of Test cricket
One of the biggest challenges for Test cricket is how to make it commercially sustainable when shorter formats are dominating. T20 leagues can guarantee high television ratings and attract big sponsorships, but Test series often rely on prestige rather than instant financial return.
Administrators might have to be more flexible with venues, scheduling, and audience engagement. For nations without strong cricket economies, hosting a five-day contest against a powerhouse like Australia or India could help with prestige, but might also result in financial losses if ticket sales and broadcasting revenue don’t meet expectations.
This contrast was pretty clear in this year’s matches. England’s five-Test showdown with India delivered drama, momentum shifts, and stakes that kept crowds engaged. But Australia’s comfortable victories over the West Indies lacked jeopardy and struggled to draw the same level of interest.
The difference speaks to why Test cricket can’t simply be about filling the calendar with more matches – some series have competitive balance and history that give them weight, but others can feel irrelevant. The best Test series are the ones where fans don’t already know the outcome, and there are two genuine challengers. Where contests are one-sided, the uncertainty disappears, and with it the magic of Test cricket.
Short formats
The shorter formats of cricket often promise huge revenue and exposure. This has made it difficult for boards to prioritize long-format matches. Players are affected by higher workloads that can lead to fatigue and injuries. (Not everyone is a fan of the shorter formats in the first place, of course. The Guardian writer Barney Ronay recently said The Hundred was the worst thing the sport ever invented.)
Scheduling may be central to maintaining Test cricket’s relevance. Authorities have sought to balance commitments across the formats, but commercial interests and broadcasting rights often dictate the calendar.Countries with smaller cricket markets are more vulnerable, as extended tours can strain budgets without guaranteeing enough financial return. For these nations, playing every scheduled Test might undermine their overall cricket programs.