At the end of one of an absorbing India-England Test series, Nasser Hussain reflected,
“It would be lovely to just look at this here this week and go, why do we complain, why do we worry about Test match cricket?
…Why do people knock this format? It is just so wonderful, but I am afraid, other countries don’t have the luxury that England, India, Australia have…So, we and India and Australia have to keep an eye on the future of Test match cricket. If we let this go, we are not doing the game a service…We need to keep an eye on this and keep pushing it forward and look after those who are not as fortunate.”
Nasser Hussain
It is a beautiful sentiment, and most fans would likely agree, Nasser.
But it is also paradoxical.
This is probably not the ideal week to bring this up—not after five gripping Tests, packed crowds, and an absolute bonkers of a finish. But here is the uncomfortable truth:
In trying to save Test cricket, the Big 3 may be unintentionally suffocating it.
The Narrative that ‘Test Cricket Is Dying’ is Hurting the Game
Each time the Ashes, the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, or an India-England series rolls around, we hear the same recycled narrative: “Test Cricket is in Danger.”
But is it really?
The love for the format was evident in the World Test Championship final, with South Africa showcasing their quality and a neutral English crowd adding to the occasion.
Test cricket is thriving, at least in England, Australia, and India.
And that’s precisely the problem. In their effort to protect and profit from the format, the Big 3 have increasingly started playing exclusively amongst themselves.
The spectators get quality Test cricket, packed stadiums, polished broadcasts, and high TV ratings. The format “stays alive.”
The Never-Ending Tri-Series
At this point, Test cricket has morphed into a never-ending tri-series between India, England, and Australia.
- ENG in IND (Nov 16-Feb 17)
- AUS in IND (Feb-Mar 17)
- IND in ENG (Jul-Sept 18)
- ENG in AUS (Nov 17-Jan 18)
- IND in AUS (Nov 18-Jan 19)
- AUS in ENG (Aug-Sep 19)
- IND in ENG (Aug-Sept 21/22)
- IND in AUS (Nov 20-Jan 21)
- ENG in IND (Feb-Mar 21)
- ENG in AUS (Dec 21-Jan 22)
- AUS in IND (Feb-Mar 23)
- AUS in ENG (Jun-Jul 23)
- ENG in IND (Jan-Mar 24)
- IND in AUS (Nov 24-Jan 25)
- IND in ENG (Jun-Aug 25)
- ENG in AUS (Nov 25-Jan 26)
Whoever said it was right.
India vs England is prep for the upcoming Ashes. Just like the Ashes will be prep for the next BGT.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world waits:
- Zimbabwe have not toured Australia for a Test series since 2003.
- Australia last played a Test against Bangladesh in 2017.
- England did not tour Sri Lanka between 2012 and 2018.
- India last visited New Zealand 2-match Test series in February 2020 before the pandemic. That feels ages ago.
- Even the popular NZ-Eng series hasn’t seen a four-Test series since 1999.
And these are just a few examples.
Test cricket has practically only grown from 2 thriving cricketing nations to 3 thriving nations in a 150 years.
— Broken Cricket Dreams Cricket Blog (@cricket_broken) August 5, 2025
The Game Theory Problem: Everyone for Themselves
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a classic game theory problem, a study of how rational decisions made in self-interest can lead to worse outcomes for everyone involved.
Imagine two individuals who are both accused of a crime and interrogated separately. Each has two choices: stay silent (cooperate) or betray the other (defect):
- If both stay silent, they get out with light sentences (let’s say 1 year each).
- If one defects while the other stays silent, the defector goes free (0 years) while the other gets a heavy sentence (10 years).
- If they both defect, they each serve moderate time (3 years).
Logically, each person would want to defect to avoid the worst-case scenario. But when both individuals make the ‘rational’ choice, they end up worse off than if they had trusted each other. And that’s the dilemma:
Acting in self-interest leads to a collectively worse outcome, even when cooperation would have helped them both.
Cooperation Requires Sacrifice, but Cricket’s Not Designed for It
We have all criticized the ICC at one point or another.
But let’s give them some grace. Unlike other global sporting bodies, the ICC isn’t a centralized power.
Cricket is not a single unified business. Rather, it is network of competing bodies trying to protect their self-interests with the ICC acting as a mediator. Consider the Test-playing nations:
That’s 50+ separate individual business entities, each trying to show profits, satisfy sponsors, and keep their board of directors happy.
Now, in theory, this can work. Money is not a zero-sum game, and multiple businesses can succeed together.
However, cricket has two unavoidable constraints:
- The calendar: There are only so many days of the year and even fewer in a cricket summer seasons are even shorter.
- The players: Unlike soccer, where there is a plethora of international quality athletes, cricket keeps copying and pasting the same pool of global T20 stars (think Rashid Khan, Pooran, Klaasen, Faf, Russell, etc.).
And when everyone’s fighting for the same weeks and the same set of players, it turns into Survival of the Fittest, a capitalistic model where some thrive but at the expense of the others.
Supply and Demand: The Big 3 Leagues are Draining the World’s Talent
England and Australia have short cricket summers, which means cramming Tests, County, bilateral series, and T20 leagues in a tight window.
The impact?
We rarely see the stars like Steve Smith or Mitchell Starc playing a full season of Big Bash or Ben Stokes playing in The Hundred.
Here’s the catch: The Big Bash and The Hundred and the individual franchises still need to maintain profitability. So what do they do?
They import talent. They poach the West Indians, South Africans, Kiwis, Pakistanis, and beyond to elevate the standard of their own leagues.
While England, Australia, and India try to ‘preserve Test cricket’ at home, their T20 leagues drain the talent pipelines of Test cricket elsewhere.
The smaller nations have a supply of great talent, but they don’t have the financial strength to retain them. These players have to go where the demand is: The IPL, Big Bash, MLC, The Hundred, SA20, ILT20.
But wait, Cricket West Indies, PCB, CSA, NZC, they all need to make money too, right?
To survive in the limited calendar, they have to make tough choices: Launching their own T20 leagues, trimming down Test tours due to cost and scheduling clashes, and squeezing random bilateral ODI series with India to stay financially afloat.
This creates a cascading effect: (1) oversaturation of cricket, (2) early Pooran-esque retirements, (3) higher injury risks, and (4) growing friction between players and their boards.
The Vicious Cycle of Modern Test Cricket
We can summarize the vicious cycle of modern Test cricket that we have know become accustomed to.
1. Big 3 Dominate the Calendar
India, England, and Australia pack their summers with high-profile Test series, leaving no room for their stars in domestic T20 leagues (except for the IPL)
2. Top Players are Poached from Smaller Nations
Leagues like the BBL and The Hundred fill the gaps by importing talent from smaller nations.
3. Smaller Boards Cut Tests to Survive
With finances tight, smaller boards prioritize limited over bilateral and launch their own leagues, but are unable to retain their players.
4. Test Quality Drops Justifying More Big 3 Series
Then, once in a blue moon, an Australia visits a West Indian side and completely decimates it. The “Test cricket is dying” narrative returns, reinforcing the idea that only the Big 3 can keep the format alive.
And so, the vicious cycle continues.
Also Read: How Much Wealth Does it Take to Win? Cricket, Olympics, and the Economics of Sport Dominance
Final Thoughts: The Big 3 Didn’t Mean to Kill It. But They Are
As fans, we want it all—packed stadiums in the Caribbean, epic five-Test rivalries, a thriving County game, an entertaining IPL season, the Poorans & Klaasens lighting up the 2026 T20 World Cup, an ODI game that still provides finishes like the 2019 WC Finals, return of the Champions League T20, room for Associates to grow, and much more.
Unfortunately, with a finite cricket calendar, a limited player pool, and every board, franchise, and broadcasters all acting rationally in their own self-interest, something has to give.
The Big 3 claim to be protecting Test cricket, but what have they actually sacrificed?
England won’t even consider the idea of a two-tier WTC because they might not even qualify for the top tier and risk the money that comes with playing Australia or India (A little sacrifice and $37 million dollar might fix the WTC problem, but that’s another story).
In trying to save the sport, the Big 3 may actually be suffocating the life out of it.
Sometimes, a little cooperation and a small sacrifice is all it takes.
BCD#401 © Copyright @Nitesh Mathur and Broken Cricket Dreams, LLC 2023. Originally published on 08/07/2025. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Broken Cricket Dreams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content (i.e. linked to the exact post/article).
