I don’t like the narrative that somehow we're trying to save test cricket and other teams need to follow us on that quest.
What Stokes and McCullum have done is to remove some or maybe all of the fear of failure from players and that's some achievement.
It's also elevated the interest in test cricket in England. The Ashes is always massive for cricket lovers but for the general public, it's only the odd series- 1981 and 2005, that really attracts an audience beyond the norm.
But last summer the interest before the series started was the biggest I've known and that's largely to due to Bazball.
Test cricket has evolved over the decades, for instance England used to play 5-6 Tests against windies, now ranges from 2-4 because their standing has diminished. Also requirements mean you should be playing weaker sides, and of course WTC is to play a scheduled set of fixtures towards that
Not sure adding Test nations as of old skool is a workable process, not until the increasing numbers are tiered into proper leagues. Zimbabwe added, South Africa re-added, then Bangladesh and most recently Ireland and Afghanistan and the fact is that only South Africa have carried themselves fully, Bangladesh blow luke warm and cold, but basically of the five most (four) are not really "Test ready", Zimbabwe may have been but basically destroyed by domestic politics and no supply line after the Flowers, Streak etc retired. Even Sri Lanka, the 6th/previous side are punching well below what might have been hoped for over 40+ years of Test status
the point? well cricket is shaped by interest and that by strength. there is more competition in ODIs and by natures T20is so obviously people will believe not all formats can exist if one is considerably less popular than others. and so with England, aussies, India and one or two others barely giving time of day to the "minnow", a Test every 3-4 years and frankly a laughable number to the newbs, it is no surprise people will only think of Tests as say the Ashes, England vs India vs Australia plus a few other series
Ireland (7 Tests)
W0 D0 L7
vs IND/ENG/AUS/PAK/NZL : W0 D0 L3
*due to proximity and relationship England have played Ireland twice, no doubt both at Lords with good reason (mainly $$$$)
Afghanistan (8 Tests)
W3 D0 L5
vs IND/ENG/AUS/PAK/NZL : W0 D0 L1
Zimbabwe (12 Tests 201
W2 D2 L8
vs IND/ENG/AUS/PAK/NZL : W0 D0 L2
*lost twice to Pakistan
Sri Lanka have played 47 Tests since Jan 2018, all but two since the newly added sides made debut, W17 D9 L21, Bangladesh have played 36 in same period, quite a surprise they've played nearly as many as Sri Lanka, W9 D3 L24 which shows they've hardly advanced in 20+ years. but have played the "big guns" a bit more
vs NZL W2 D0 L4
vs SAF W0 D0 L2
vs ENG W0 D0 L0 ie played none
vs IND W0 D0 L4
vs PAK W0 D0 L3
2 wins over the kiwis 2018-2024 of all the better Test nations. Wasn't deliberate to exclude their win over England (2016), it fell outside the range of Ireland/Afghanistan playing Tests and whole point was to show how much/little sides outside of India, England, Pakistan, New Zealand and Australia played in the same period as the two newbs.
England in same period (2018-2024) have played 74 Tests, Australia and India 57 and 58 respectively, New Zealand and Pakistan 44 apiece, South Africa 46 showing England can sell and still have interest in Tests, the others a more balanced outlook, the new Test nations either can't get the games or noone who will play them is looking beyond their own $$$ pot which is in shorter formats - fact of life, doesn't mean Tests will die just not as sustainable a format for smaller nations who think eg Ireland vs West Indies in front of a small crowd, little $$$ from TV etc is better than short formats.
