Is the ICC pushing Test cricket towards a slow death instead of giving it the place it deserves?

“They (International Cricket Council) need to do something about the most important form of the game, which is Test cricket,” Michael Holding writes me in an email exchange. The great West Indian pacer’s concerns are valid. If not addressed, they may turn grave.

India were 87 for 4 when R Ashwin walked in to bat on Day 1 of India's third Test against the West Indies at St Lucia. The visitors were further reduced to 126 for 5. Virat Kohli’s men stared at an embarrassing collapse. Jason Holder’s troops sensed a backdoor re-entry into the series in which they trailed 0-1.

But Ashwin and Wriddhiman Saha, who walked in at the fall of the fifth wicket, dug in. They wanted the West Indies bowlers to earn their wickets. India ended the day without any further losses, on 234. It was compelling cricket personified.

The next morning, the duo continued to hold fort. Ashwin’s trademark flicks off his leg were on display, and Saha’s nimble footwork was a delight to watch. By the time Saha departed, the pair had added 113 match-changing runs. India were finally all out for a scenario-changing 353. It was Test cricket in all its glory.

But the fightback by India’s lower order, after the local bowlers had destroyed the top, was played out in front of near-empty stands. In fact, there were few genuine cricket-lovers in the stands to applaud when Ashwin and Saha scored critical centuries under pressure. And there were even fewer when India completed a victory that looked unlikely on Day 1.

Test cricket was serving up what it cooks best – interesting cricket. But no one got the memo. Just how many spectators watched Virat Kohli score his maiden double century in the first Test, or KL Rahul bring up a century on his return to the side in the second game?

Test cricket is exciting, but why is no one watching?

Test cricket has history on its side. It is the original form of the game. It is what cricket was meant to be – a regal sport to be played over a number of days. But the problem genuinely arises when two teams compete in a one-sided affair.

When India toured the Caribbean, the hosts were not expected to provide any competition. Hence, the games were played in front of vacant stands. Even some of the Ranji Trophy games in India may have larger crowds than the numbers that turned up to watch India walk over the West Indies. A series without competition and context meant there was hardly any crowd interest.

Apart from Tests in Australia and England, the longest form of the game is struggling to evoke much interest in the other countries. People have almost disowned Tests in the West Indies and Zimbabwe. There appears to be selective fervour in South Africa, Sri Lanka and New Zealand – depending on who the opponents are. Bangladesh do not host a lot of red-ball cricket. In India, the interest is venue-specific. And while international cricket does not travel to Pakistan, their adopted home, the UAE, is clearly not a fan of the five-day game.

There have been sporadic attempts at introducing day-night Tests, but the concept is yet to be embraced whole-heartedly. India dismissed the prospect of a two-tier system because they believed it to be a "losing proposition". With 75 percent of total viewership and an equal percent of revenue generated under its control, the position of the Board of Control for Cricket in India is one of power. With the BCCI presumably not in favour of it, the International Cricket Council stalled the plan abruptly.

Reportedly, the ICC could now consider a biennial Test Championship playoff between the top two teams. Either a playoff or a league to determine the No. 1 team in Tests is worth a try, because routine bilateral series, apart from iconic ones like the Ashes, have little context and even less interest.

But the ICC’s focus is divergent. The health of Test cricket is not all it cares for. It is, apparently, also contemplating league structures for the T20Is and ODIs. “Encouragingly there is an appetite from the ten Full Members for more context around all three formats of the game,” ICC chief Dave Richardson has said.

Are bewildering rule changes alienating ODI audiences?

There is no doubting the popularity of T20 cricket. But 50-over games are not always played to packed houses anymore.

ODI cricket has undergone constant transformation over the years. It has been shortened from 65 overs to 60, and then to 50. It used to be played in whites, with the red cherry and during the day. It is now played only in coloured clothes, with a white ball and often under floodlights. The rules of the game too have changed at a furious pace.

For instance, the idea of super-subs was introduced and then abolished even before people could familiarise themselves with the concept. Restrictions on the field settings and number of bouncers allowed per over have been tinkered with several times. Then the ICC decided to use a new ball from each end. The Duckworth Lewis system is still a mystery to players and fans alike.

Indeed, there have been so many changes in the format that you would not blame the cricket-lover for not keeping up with the the rules. What, for instance, is the situation right now on referrals? Does anyone know for sure? Maybe a little less of messing around with the rules alone will take care of the dwindling interest in ODIs.

Fixing what ain't broke

In this situation, do ODI and T20 cricket need a league structure? Probably not, considering there is a global one-day event almost every year. The 2015 World Cup was followed by the 2016 T20 World Cup. England will host a Champions Trophy in 2017, while the ICC is likely to schedule another World T20 in 2018. And finally, 2019 will play host to another 50-over World Cup.

With such events every year, how will the ICC’s idea of a league structure add any value or change the context to limited overs cricket? After all, bilateral series have their own competitiveness built in. Asks former India captain Ajit Wadekar, “What is the need to make any changes to one-day cricket? Isn’t the rivalry between two countries enough to keep the cricket interesting?”

But because one-day cricket is where the financial benefits are – TV rights, tickets, sponsorship, are all in greater demand than in Tests – it appears that the ICC wants to exploit it further. “There is no need for anything new with limited-overs cricket. That doesn't need fixing, but, I suppose, the ICC are only interested in what improves the intake of finances and not what improves the game itself,” laments Holding.

In pampering the younger siblings, the ICC appears to have forgotten that cricket’s oldest child – Test cricket – is ailing and in need of complete and urgent attention.