There’s definitely a distinction between “people interested enough in cricket to spend money on it” (whether on a pay TV channel or tickets to the ground) and the far larger group of “people interested enough in cricket to read about it, chat about it with friends, keep an eye on the live scores or an ear on the radio, watch the highlights if they’re on free TV” (i.e. cricket’s part in the wider cultural consciousness).

T20 is definitely better at converting interest into revenue. But in terms of cultural consciousness, Test cricket really sticks out, at least in England. The public (and media, which might be a self-perpetuating loop) really only pays much attention to white ball cricket during world cups. It isn’t all about the Big Three, you still do get people discussing things that happened in a Test series with NZ or the Windies or South Africa or Pakistan or Sri Lanka. Obviously the Ashes stick out more than anything else. I think if you asked a random bloke on the street the current state of an ongoing Test series, you’d be substantially more likely to get a near-accurate summary than if you asked about an ongoing ODI or T20 series. (For domestic cricket, whether that’s the Hundred or County, you’d have to get pretty lucky to find someone with a clue. But experience suggests even surprisingly non-sporty folk in Yorkshire will have a decent idea if they’re in contention at the business end of the County Championship.)

I think T20s/ODIs tend to be a bit “samey” so it’s harder to keep track of them all. Tests usually tell a more unique story, even if the results end up the same. England can get hammered 4-0 or 5-0 by Australia and every loss still feels different. And masochists will still tune in. Also people will chat about an ongoing Test – what do you think will happen tomorrow, when will the rain stop, has another wicket fallen yet? – in a way that they don’t for limited overs stuff. A big problem for Tests is the background hum they provide over the course of a working day, which is how a lot of people experience cricket (live score updates, TMS on the radio, maybe a TV screen in a break room for the lucky few) is incredibly difficult to monetise.

Sadly true. However we can take heart in the fact that test cricket can still be a crowd-puller and income generator if the competition is chosen well. An Eng-Aus-SA-Ind series is always going to be followed. If we keep demanding inclusivity, the only way tests can be played by all nations is if it is subsidized by the revenue generated by the shorter formats (which could well be happening even now I suppose). Let’s hope perhaps a broader discussion of this by ICC might lead to some good solution.

We were wary of this article coming across as, “No, actually, everyone’s interested in Test cricket, not T20,” but it’s not meant as that.

It’s more just a correction; pointing out that income isn’t an exact equivalent for interest. It’s an indicator, but it doesn’t measure it. There is clearly massive appeal in the shortest format for a massive number of people. This is just undeniable. We suppose all we’re saying is that analysis of ‘what people want’ can sometimes be simplistic.

But to stand by those things we said, it doesn’t really matter, because while revenue does not equate to interest, the game is only really shaped by what can be extracted from fans. Those hidden unmonetised corners of the game won’t ever move the dial.

Speaking more globally: the only test series in India that generate any amount of interest is if England or Australia are playing us. Why? I’d assume this leads to more evenly matched contests. If India plays Bangladesh, not many would spend time watching and/or discussing things (unless India loses). I am not sure Australia spend significant time discussing the Ashes – they certainly don’t go around touring other countries telling they’re preparations for the Ashes. This “looking ahead to the Ashes” also seems to be only an English thing (though I could well be wrong here).

On the whole, I would have to conclude that Test cricket just does not generate enough interest among the public to justify significant time spent on it. Having a dedicated window for Tests would not be a bad idea at all, but has its drawbacks as you pointed out.

PS: I am writing this before my morning coffee so there’s a good chance this is all complete rubbish.

I rose early, because I was awake and because I got behind with my reading and paperwork this week. I caught up with some of the reading with some coffee and biscuits.

Daisy and I were supposed to play tennis this morning, but rain stopped outdoor play all day in London.

Daisy hunkered down with the TV, while I called one of the few people I thought might prefer a chat this morning – Awesome Simo – with whom I discussed many things including the possibility that he might join me for a day of the Ireland test match in a few week’s time.

After securing Awesome Simo’s ticket (I do hope the MCC ticketing system doesn’t revoke my membership for purchasing a ticket during the coronation) I pressed ahead with an Ogblog piece about the silly stuff I was doing in my student days, forty years ago:

https://ianlouisharris.com/1983/05/08/criminology-bells-bears-bats-twixt-barnes-at-keele-and-rectory-road-in-shelton-early-may-1983/

Then I cracked on with catching up on my paperwork. Daisy and I had agreed not to take lunch until after the coronation was over, which gave me ample time on that pesky paperwork. Lunch comprised a taster of sausage salad left over from yesterday, followed by some yummy pâté with bread. Daisy drank juice, I drank Oolong tea.

Yep, used to enjoy them myself. I also felt it solved the problem of “ODIs need context!” which has led to them being lumped in a league table with world cup qualifying points at stake, then totally ignored (even some series cancelled lately, the reverse of the nineties situation where random ODI series were springing up all over the shop) once a country has ensured qualification. A mid-tour ODI fest did have context – it was part of that summer series.

Being even more heretical, though not ideally what I would like for the men’s Ashes itself, I think the women’s multiformat Ashes points-scoring system has a lot going for it in that sense. If the men’s Ashes ever does end up becoming cut down to two Tests – hopefully not, since there does seem to be a good appetite for bums on seats which there isn’t for some of the other Test series sadly, but can’t rule it out if the direction of travel is Wimbledonisation – I would rather that option got explored than ever see the headline “England retain Ashes by taking an unassailable 1-0 lead in the two-Test series”.

I don’t want to sound like I walked out of the Victorian Era but there’s a case that it all started to go wrong when tours began to travel by air instead of sea. Time on board ships was time the players were getting a break, though boredom may have been as much of an issue as burnout, and must have added to the quiet building of anticipation. Tourists were obviously rusty after a voyage, but tours were long enough to give them prep before the main event. And while squads had to be big as you couldn’t just fly injury replacements over, you did get a more coherent team identity. With the rare exception of when there were two touring squads under the English flag who’d been shipped to different corners of the globe…. But these days, it’s not remarkable for two squads to play different formats in different countries on consecutive days, and the only reason anyone would bat an eyelid at them playing simultaneously would be the inefficiency of cannibalising your media audience.

Since this is a day for a spot of traditionalism, I’ll just add this: bring back the quinquereme! Might not get you Down Under, but at least England could tour the Netherlands in style.

Yeah mid tour one dayers used to be common and often felt like a nice extension of the series. That was when teams only brought one squad though so the cast was the same. We’re a million miles from there now.

KC, how’s this on Cricinfo and not here!?

Of course the counterpoint is: why do we have to have endless tease-y webisodes, just roll the next series already! But maybe filming the webisodes was how the actors got into character before they recorded the main show (I did say this analogy was going to get stretched). The dominance of home teams in Tests has rather taken the shine off them for me; partly there may be unintended consequences of the ICC trying to make all Tests an “event” with “context”, pushing boards to stretch home advantage to the limit when it comes to pitch preparation or trying not to give touring sides decent practice. But skipping tour games
which pad a series out is probably to the benefit, at least financially, of both boards, while also leaving touring sides looking undercooked and taking some of the joy out of beating them.

Badale’s comments also made me wonder if cricket has got itself into an “all killer, no filler” problem – where if you just try to put out killer content all year round, actually a lot of it starts to look like filler. If everything has just got to mean something, it can all start to blur together until few things really mean anything. Reminds me of David Mitchell’s “Watch The Football!” sketch, only worse because at least football has an off-season while international cricket just keeps on rolling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM