GEORGIE PARKER: New Test systems could threaten Ashes if Australia, England, India play each other more often

The cricketing calendar is never ending, once our summer ends several others begin around the world.

There is no break for the fans, or more importantly for the players, which is why Test cricket is ‘dying’ overseas.

While we have had a summer to remember with the Border-Gavaskar series giving us record crowds and tv ratings on Seven, but the same can’t be said for the rest of the cricketing world where Test cricket is struggling to stay relevant. Top sides like England are playing double the amount of Test matches than those below them.

Too many players and nations are putting their eggs into the basket that makes the most money – T20 cricket - rather than the basket of history and tradition.

It’s hard to turn down a big pay day and we are in a very privileged position to sit on our high horses about Test cricket when our Australian players are paid the way they are.

The average Australian men’s cricket Australia retainer contract is roughly 10 times that of an average West Indies player contract, so no wonder these players want to go and play more short form cricket around the world.

Sam Konstas is set to have his salary skyrocket to $367,000 a year when he is listed with Cricket Australia, while Pat Cummins as skipper makes more than $3 million a year.

So Test cricket is in strife.

Less matches and less players making it a priority, so along comes the split tier system idea, to make matches more relevant by the top teams playing each other more often.

A plan, which in theory is to “Make Test Cricket Great Again”.

When looking at the tiered system, it isn’t too far away from what we play now with the Test Championship.

Australia didn’t play many of the second-tier sides, and when we do they’re often limited series with the priority being the Ashes and the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.

Despite their strong from it is a bit hard to argue South Africa deserve to make the Test Championship final after a much easier run to get there.

Test cricket can make a lot of money when the big nations are locking horns so is the desire to split the competition for the greater good of Test cricket, or the greater good of the three big nations’ hip pocket?

Maybe it’s a little bit of both, but there needs to be clear parameters of what it looks like, and how those in the second tier can be looked after so the gulf between top and bottom doesn’t get too great.

I don’t have the answers, but I have questions I really want answered as someone who loves Test cricket and wants it to thrive.

Financially, how does the split work? How much are we, as one of the rich nations, willing to give up from the money we make from playing India and England more often to give to the poorer nations?

The only way this can work is if there is a pool of money for all Test players so players are encouraged to play five-day cricket.

Will there be a promotion and relegation? It would make sense to create an incentive for all teams to play well in all their matches.

This, though, begs the bigger question for me, which is what happens if India slumps out of the top league? Would they still be for the tiered system, or only when it suits them?

That leads to another question, which is domestically, how do the local competitions, or the non negotiable bilateral series (like the Ashes) line up with tier systems which can change year by year?

Where does the Ashes fit in if England dropped out of the top tier? There needs to be the ability for matches to be played outside of the tiered system, but logistically we already struggle to fit it all in, so how sustainable can this be?

This is a nuanced discussion and needs all players and countries to find common ground on how it would work.

There needs to be change in cricket, absolutely, Test cricket has been in trouble for a decade since short form took over, but it needs to be equitable change for the good of cricket, not just for the good of the three big.