Ravi Shastri's Comment and Bengaluru's Weather: A Ledger on the Test Cricket Calendar

Rain had wiped out the first day's play at Bengaluru's M. Chinnaswamy Stadium. In the press box, I was writing dates in my notebook — how many days the rain stole, how many days the ground took to dry, how many days the schedule shifted. Meanwhile, Ravi Shastri's comment arrived: India needs a separate window for Test cricket, because the Test calendar is under pressure from T20 leagues and bilateral series. Hearing it, I felt this was the same point I had been recording in my notebook for years — the only difference is that I have stamps, Shastri has a microphone. The gist of Shastri's argument is that the International Cricket Council's (ICC) Future Tours Programme (FTP) does not give Test matches the space they deserve. He argues that with the expansion of T20 leagues and the pressure of bilateral ODI and T20 series, Test cricket needs a dedicated window so players can prepare properly and fans get a stable calendar. The comment comes at a time when India's calendar is already packed — home series, overseas tours, Asia Cup, World Cup preparations, and in between, the two-month IPL window. But one thing needs to be made clear. The demand for a separate Test window is not new. It surfaces when a big name speaks, and then goes into cold storage just as quickly. The real question is not whether a window is needed — the real question is whose cost the window will come at. The ICC calendar is a finite resource. If a 40-day separate window is created for Tests, those 40 days have to be cut from somewhere. Either from T20 leagues, or from bilateral series, or from tours by smaller nations whose voice is weak in the ICC boardroom. When I started my career in 2026, the politics of the calendar was not this complex. There was one argument — Test cricket is the purest form of the game, so it should get priority. Today that argument sounds hollow, because between the three formats, a fourth has emerged — franchise cricket. The IPL, Big Bash League, Caribbean Premier League, Pakistan Super League, Lanka Premier League — all demand their own windows, and boards have no choice but to grant them, because that is where the money comes from. The interesting thing is that what Shastri said is exactly what former BCCI officials and several former captains have been saying from time to time. But when the BCCI itself builds the calendar, the talk of a separate Test window gets left behind. Why? Because for the BCCI, Test cricket is a product that draws audiences but does not earn as much money as T20 and ODI. Domestic Tests see half-empty stadiums, while IPL tickets get scalped. This difference is visible in the board's decisions. There is a line in my notebook that I wrote during a Delhi vs Railways Ranji match in 2026 — 'The calendar is the document nobody reads, but everybody follows.' Twenty years later, that line still holds. Shastri's comment is a start, but until the BCCI and ICC boardrooms decide where the days for the Test window will be cut from, it will remain just a comment. Now let us look at an aspect nobody paid attention to. Shastri talked about a Test window, but did not say what the Test calendar looked like during his own tenure as coach. Between 2026 and 2026, India played more than 40 Test matches — the number suggests Tests were prioritised in that period. But how many of those Tests were played after enough time for preparation? How many were ones where the team arrived mid-series without a warm-up match? This question should be asked of Shastri, but it will not be, because those who make statements on TV and those who make decisions in the board often sit on different chairs. There is another angle that often gets left out of the Test window debate — that of smaller nations. If a separate window is created, will Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan and Bangladesh play their Tests in that same window? Or will they be pushed to the margins again, where their Tests exist only in name and they get no chance to play against the big nations? The officials who build the ICC calendar avoid answering this question, because the answer goes against the interests of the big nations. I remember that in 2026, when I was on a 44-day tour with the Delhi Daredevils, we had to travel city to city by bus. One evening we were told the next day's match was postponed because of bad weather, and we would have to leave early for the next city. At that moment I thought that if it had been a Test match, we would not have faced such uncertainty, because Tests have five days and even with rain, playing time can be adjusted. But today it feels that uncertainty is just as much in Tests — not just of weather, but of not knowing when and where the next Test will be. In Bengaluru that day, when the rain stopped, I looked at the spectators in the stands. Some had left, some stayed. An elderly couple sat under a plastic sheet, holding an old scorecard that said 2026 World Cup final. They told me, 'We come every year, rain or shine. Test cricket is like a festival to us.' Hearing that, I felt there was weight in Shastri's point — if a separate window for Tests is not created, such spectators will slowly dwindle, and then the board will get the chance to say that Tests have no audience, so we cannot prioritise them. But there is a catch here. Creating a separate window for Tests is one thing, and making Test cricket popular within that window is another. If a window is created but Tests start at 9 am and end at 5 pm, as often happens, spectators will not come. The introduction of day-night Tests (pink-ball Tests) was a step in this direction, but it too was limited to select matches. If the board truly wants to save Test cricket, it needs not just a window but to make Tests an experience that pulls spectators to the stadium. Shastri's comment is, in a way, an attempt to put pressure on the board. But putting pressure on the board is not the job of former players alone. It is also the media's. And as long as the media only covers statements, it will not question the politics of the calendar. In my career, I have seen that calendar-related news usually comes through board press releases, and they never say which series makes way for whom. One fact that often goes unnoticed in this whole matter is that the ICC's Future Tours Programme is already fixed until 2031. That means if a decision on a Test window is made now, it will only take effect after 2031. Until then, the state of Test cricket will be the responsibility of those making statements today. This is an irony that needs no expert to understand — just a look at the calendar. Whenever I go to a Test match, I write on the first page of my notebook — 'how many days the rain stole today, how many days the ground dried, how many days the schedule shifted.' These small things tell how fragile Test cricket is. And when someone says Tests need a separate window, I think what matters more than the window is how Test cricket will be kept alive within that window. There is another aspect to Shastri's point — he linked the demand for a Test window to the expansion of T20 leagues. That is correct, but only half the truth. T20 leagues not only pressure the calendar but also pressure players' priorities. Today, for a young player, performing well in the IPL is more beneficial, because it brings money, fame and a place in the national team all at once. Performing well in Tests only brings a place in the national team, and that too only if selectors value that format. This difference is the biggest challenge for the future of Test cricket. Now let us also look at what Shastri did not say. He talked about a Test window, but did not say that the number of Test matches should be reduced or that they should be separated from bilateral series. In fact, if a Test window is created, the biggest benefit will go to teams already strong in Tests — India, Australia, England. Whether smaller teams will get space in that window is a question still unanswered. And this is where the limit of Shastri's comment becomes clear. This is the comment of a former coach of a big nation, which speaks of the broader interest of Test cricket, but its implications are not that broad. Another thing that bothers me is the coverage of Test cricket. I remember that in the 2010s, when India hosted Test series, newspaper coverage was different — full pages, analysis, graphics. Today that coverage has shrunk. If a separate window for Tests is created but the media does not cover it, what is the benefit? This question should also be asked of Shastri, because he himself is part of the media. I write another thing in my notebook — 'When the board builds a calendar, it does not just fix dates, it also decides which format will live and which will die.' I wrote this line in 2026, during a seminar debating the future of Test cricket. Today in 2026 the same debate continues, only the faces have changed. One positive aspect of Shastri's comment is that he expressed concern about Test cricket. That concern is necessary, because if even former players stay silent, the board will get the chance to say there is no complaint. But expressing concern is not enough. It needs a concrete proposal alongside — how many days of window, in which month, which countries will play, and what steps will be taken to popularise Tests in that window. I hope this time the talk will not be limited to a statement. But the gap between hope and reality I have seen many times in my career. Until the calendar changes, Test cricket will keep struggling for its place. After that Bengaluru match, when I stepped out, it had started raining again. The elderly couple folded their plastic sheet and left. I wrote in my notebook — 'today's day was stolen by rain, but tomorrow's day is not yet decided.' Perhaps the same is true for Test cricket. The window debate is a start, but the real fight is to keep Test cricket alive within that window. And that fight will be won not by statements, but by concrete steps.