MITCHELL JOHNSON: Sam Konstas T20 skill set may not be the best fit for the future of Test cricket

The elevation of Sam Konstas from his relative obscurity playing as a NSW rookie to becoming a cult Test hero - who is now headed on his first overseas tour - is great for the game, but it also raises questions about how Test cricket will be played by the next generation of stars.

The fundamentals of cricket are timeless, yet countries such as England - the home of Bazball and The Hundred - have recognised the need to innovate to draw crowds.

Over the last century, cricket has undergone remarkable changes—from uncovered pitches and eight-ball overs to the introduction of gym programs and modern athletic catches juggled on either side of the boundary rope.

While the core of Test cricket remains, the landscape in which it operates is different. The challenge lies in balancing tradition with innovation, ensuring that Test cricket continues to thrive amid the popularity of shorter formats.

As long as players such as Konstas are passionate about the game and strive to push the boundaries within it, Test cricket can remain a prominent force in the world of sport.

When one-day cricket first emerged, it stirred significant controversy, with many traditionalists viewing it as a threat to the sanctity of Test cricket. It’s interesting to reflect on how players from that era might have reacted, likely dismissing ODIs as a distraction from the purity of the longer format.

I find myself mirroring those sentiments when I see T20-style players bringing their unique approaches into Test cricket.

While I appreciate the excitement that T20 cricket infuses into the game, there’s a delicate balance to strike. It’s important to respect the nuances that define the five-day game.

Test cricket is a culmination of skills from all forms of the game, and while modern players bring fresh perspectives, they must also honour the traditions that have shaped the sport.

Ultimately, as cricket evolves, it’s vital to maintain a connection to its rich history while embracing new talent and ideas.

Doing so will ensure that the sport remains vibrant and relevant for future generations.

Test cricket may also undergo another serious change off the pitch with a proposal to split the global competition into two tiers.

The idea appears to ignore the fact that’s essentially what we already have.

After a summer of packed stadiums for Australia’s Border-Gavaskar Trophy victory over India, with 837,879 people attending in total, it’s clear there’s significant interest in the longest form and Test cricket in Australia is in a healthy state.

Test cricket has maintained strongholds in Australia, India, and England — often referred to as the ‘’big three’’ due to their competitive nature and financial influence.

New Zealand and South Africa are also competitive teams but face challenges in terms of financial backing compared to the big three, with rugby dominant in both countries.

There are pros and cons to consider when considering a formal split into two tiers. All of those nations probably stand to benefit, along with possibly Pakistan and Sri Lanka if included in the top division.

The motivation for this change is to strengthen Test cricket and enhance financial viability. With the best teams playing against each other more frequently, Test cricket could be showcased in a more compelling manner.

This tier system aims to streamline the schedule by eliminating less competitive ‘’fill in’’ series, ultimately fostering higher standards and greater interest in the sport when the leading teams face off more regularly.

The downside is the real risk of losing tier two teams due to a decline in interest and financial viability. These nations mightn’t get the chance to get better against the best which may have an impact on improvement. Conversely, it could motivate those teams to improve and strive for a spot in the top tier.

However, financial support remains a significant concern unless the ICC steps in to assist the tier two countries and they have systems in place to grow the game.

Then there’s the impact on the Ashes and the fear of killing the golden goose. If Test cricket’s most traditional rivalry is staged more frequently, it raises questions about whether that’s truly beneficial.

I remember when the Ashes was played virtually back-to-back in 2013, 2013/14 and 2015 – supposedly forced by the 2015 World Cup - and it felt too soon for players to compete again. That can diminish its appeal, especially given the rich history and the traditional four-year build-up associated with the Ashes being played in each country.

While the prospect of increased Ashes matches may excite the cricket boards in Australia and England from a financial standpoint, this may not sustain long-term interest if fans feel overwhelmed by the frequency.

Overall, it’s a positive sign that there’s a conversation around improving Test cricket. But it makes me wonder whether the latest proposed changes are aimed purely at benefiting the tier one teams or if they intend to strengthen Test cricket around the world. Ideally, the goal should be to enhance the game for everyone.

The enhancement of competition and the potential for increased interest in quality matches could be beneficial, but we also need to recognise the risks of alienating the lower-tier teams and possibly disrupting the rich traditions of the game.