I am tired of being told that Test cricket is healthy because one gripping match briefly dominates social media. A classic finish proves the format’s dramatic power; it does not prove the ecosystem is secure. Indian cricket now possesses money, audience, political influence and scheduling leverage on a scale earlier administrators could scarcely imagine. If the five-day game weakens on our watch, scarcity will not be the excuse. Choice will.
The BCCI’s own domestic fixtures show the breadth of cricket it administers, while the international game is organised around a crowded cycle whose results and context are tracked by outlets such as ESPNcricinfo’s World Test Championship coverage. The existence of calendars, however, is not the same as the existence of priorities. Test cricket is increasingly asked to survive in the gaps left by franchise tournaments, white-ball series and commercial commitments. Furniture placed in a corridor is technically still in the house.
A prestige product needs ordinary days
Administrators love marquee Tests. A packed holiday crowd, a heritage venue and a dramatic opponent make excellent promotional material. But formats live through ordinary fixtures: the second Test of a series, a weekday morning, an opponent without a giant television market, a match that needs four sessions before its pattern becomes visible. If broadcasters and boards only value exceptional occasions, they train audiences to treat the rest as disposable.
India should schedule coherent home series with enough notice for spectators to plan travel. Test grounds need affordable sections, shade, drinking water, clean toilets and ticket systems that do not feel like punishment for caring. Television presentation should explain fields, spells, pitch changes and session tactics instead of apologising whenever the run rate falls. The format is not inaccessible. It is frequently presented by people impatient with its grammar.
Then there are pitches. I do not object to home advantage. Every serious side should know how to win in its own conditions, and Indian spinners should not be forced to perform on imported surfaces to satisfy foreign aesthetics. But a pitch that removes too much skill from batting and collapses the contest into survival does not strengthen India. It deprives our batters of the long innings they will need abroad and reduces spinners to beneficiaries of soil rather than masters of craft.
The ideal Indian Test pitch should change across the match, reward precise spin, allow fast bowlers a role and make batters earn permanence. Preparing that surface consistently is difficult, which is why the richest board in cricket should invest in curators, soil research and transparent venue evaluation. A two-day finish must not be celebrated simply because India won. Supporters deserve a contest, and selectors deserve evidence that travels.
The Ranji Trophy cannot remain a moral lecture
Whenever a centrally contracted player skips domestic red-ball cricket, the system delivers a sermon about duty. Sometimes the criticism is justified. But duty cannot flow in only one direction. If the Ranji Trophy matters, its schedule should not be squeezed into inhospitable windows; its matches should have dependable streaming, good outfields, quality balls and medical support; and performances should produce a visible route to India selection.
Players respond rationally to incentives. The IPL can transform a family’s finances in weeks. Red-ball cricket asks for months of physical wear, uncertain selection and much less attention. Match-fee improvements help, but status also matters. Selectors should communicate that sustained first-class excellence counts. Broadcasters should tell the stories of domestic professionals before an injury summons one into the national squad and everybody pretends to have followed him for years.
I would like the BCCI to treat A tours as essential infrastructure. Overseas red-ball exposure cannot be improvised after a senior batter develops a technical problem. India A should play regular multi-day series in South Africa, England, Australia and New Zealand, while promising players from those countries should tour India. Such programmes cost money and generate modest immediate revenue. That is precisely the kind of investment a wealthy governing body exists to make.
Workload management requires honesty too. Rest is not softness. Fast bowlers cannot be used across every format, bilateral series and franchise commitment without consequence. Yet workload is sometimes invoked selectively, with players rested from one obligation only to appear promptly in another. The solution is a published hierarchy of major assignments, individualised plans and acceptance that no star can play everything. Test availability should be planned, not requested as a favour.
The World Test Championship needs Indian pressure
The championship has given bilateral series a wider table and rescued some matches from total isolation. It remains structurally uneven. Teams play different opponents, series vary in length, and financially weaker boards struggle to host Tests that lose money. India cannot solve those problems alone, but the BCCI’s influence means silence is a policy choice. It should advocate a fairer schedule and revenue support that makes hosting possible.
A two-tier system is often proposed as the cure. I see the commercial logic and fear the sporting consequence. If smaller nations are denied regular matches against major teams, their audiences and players will drift further away. Promotion and relegation sound meritocratic until unequal revenue, facilities and calendars determine who can compete. Any restructuring must include guaranteed pathways, shared income and meaningful cross-tier fixtures.
India should also commit to playing enough Tests against opponents outside the financial big three. A sport cannot call itself global when its richest members mainly trade premium series among themselves. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies and others need contests that broadcasters can sell and players can aspire to. Charity is not the argument. Competitive diversity is. Closed circuits become repetitive, and repetitive products eventually lose value.
Day-night Tests may help in specific cities, but novelty is not strategy. Pink-ball behaviour, dew, travel and working hours need local study. The answer to an empty stand is not automatically fluorescent equipment. Sometimes the answer is a functioning ticket website and permission to enter the ground with a bottle of water. Cricket administration has a genius for inventing innovations before completing errands.
What the BCCI owes the game
I do not romanticise an imaginary past. Old Test cricket included tedious draws, poor facilities, tiny pay and administrators who treated players as replaceable labour. The modern game is better in many ways because limited-overs cricket and the IPL created wealth, professionalism and new audiences. My argument is not that T20 ruined cricket. It is that success in one format gives India the means to preserve another with intention.
The BCCI should publish a multi-year red-ball plan covering home Test windows, India A tours, domestic scheduling, pitch standards, player compensation and support for less wealthy Test nations. Measure attendance honestly. Survey spectators. Coordinate with schools and local associations. Make Test tickets available early. Put domestic archives and live scores in one reliable digital home. None of this is romantic. It is product management applied to sporting heritage.
Players must meet the institution halfway. Senior batters should return to first-class cricket when form and schedule allow. Captains should speak about Tests as a living priority, not a ceremonial favourite. Young players should not be shamed for wanting IPL success, but they should be shown that red-ball excellence brings money, recognition and security too. Culture follows what organisations reward.
I still believe the finest cricket occurs when a batter’s technique, a bowler’s patience, a captain’s imagination and a changing surface argue over five days. That belief alone will preserve nothing. Formats do not survive because people like me become misty-eyed. They survive because calendars, contracts, grounds and broadcasts make room for them.
India is not a helpless guardian begging the market for mercy. It is the market’s most powerful participant. That power brings an obligation: leave Test cricket stronger than we found it. If the BCCI chooses to treat the format as spare furniture, no amount of heritage advertising will hide the dust.
