Earlier this month, Afghanistan superstar Rashid Khan said there was "no target in Test cricket." His priorities illustrate certain aspects about the state of our game today, writes Abhishek Mukherjee.
‘There is no target’
A few minutes had passed since the Gujarat Titans had pulled off a heist against the Delhi Capitals, thanks to David Miller’s denied single and Kuldeep Yadav’s run-out. Rashid Khan, who had been magnificent that evening, showed up at the post-match press conference.
Naturally, he was asked whether he would come with the Afghan Test side for their first Test match in India since 2018, from June 6. Rashid’s response – a departure from the usual cliches on the supremacy of Test cricket – was refreshing.
He spoke about his “crazy” workload in his previous Test, at Bulawayo in January 2025, a game he had played against medical advice. “If you don’t want to play cricket, you keep playing red-ball cricket because it’s not going to support you,” the doctor had warned him. “You won’t be [there] for longer to play for Afghanistan.” When Rashid ignored his advice and bowled 55 overs, the doctor warned him again: “No, you can’t do that to yourself.”
This time Rashid listened. “I will just take it easy, get myself ready for the [2027] World Cup. Imagine something happens to my back in that Test match. I can’t play 100 Test matches. If you’re playing one Test in a year, I can’t play for 100 years. And there is no target in Test cricket.”
Easily the biggest name in Afghan cricket history, Rashid has played only six Test matches since his debut in 2018, and only two in this decade. It is not that it is not his strong format: he has three ten-wicket hauls, and his 45 wickets have come at 20.44. At Chattogram in 2019, he took 11 wickets to beat the clock to defeat Bangladesh with minutes to spare. Against Zimbabwe in Abu Dhabi in 2021, he wheeled away for 99.2 overs (a 21st-century Test record) for 11 more wickets.
Rashid is not the first cricketer to cut down on Test cricket because of the risks involved with the workload, but the other reason is just as poignant: despite being a legend of the shorter formats and a proven success in a short Test career, the system has deprived him of all targets and ambitions in the longest format.
‘Real cricket’?
The overused cliche makes routine appearances towards the climax of hard-fought Test matches. An impressive phrase, it has played its part in establishing Test matches as cricket’s “prestige format”.
Whatever qualities Test cricket might have, inclusivity is not among them – and that is without getting into the way women’s Tests have been reduced to mere tokens. The right to play men’s Tests, presumably the pinnacle of the sport, needs to be earned. Of the 12 boards with that status, the first 10 were invited or voted into Test cricket, and Afghanistan should have been stripped of their Full Membership for the lack of women’s cricket in the country.
That leaves only Ireland, the only team to have actually qualified for their Test status by clearing one ICC-laid step after another. In their eight-year stint at this level after going through the grind of qualification, Ireland have played 12 Tests and are not part of the World Test Championship.
Zimbabwe, the third of the non-WTC “Small Three”, have not fared much better. They played 10 Tests in 2025 – but only 12 across the six years before that.
Of course, there have been reports of these teams being part of the 2027-2029 WTC cycle. However, there have been parallel reports of them playing one-off Tests in the cycle. If that happens, Tests involving the Small Three will become token games like women’s Tests.
It is not that the picture looks rosy for the Test teams between the Big and Small Threes (we can call them the Middle Six). They might have shared two of the three WTC titles, but the last series of four or more Tests involving two teams other than the Big Three dates back to 2005. The Big Three continue to play each other for five-match Test series, but for other games, they do little more than the bare minimum the WTC expects of them.
Some numbers will make this clear. Since the start of the first WTC, Australia have played 35 Tests inside the Big-Three club – but only 30 other Tests. For India, the numbers read 34 and 32. While England’s split (39 and 48) may not be as skewed, in an ideal world the two groups should have a ratio close to 2:9.
Thus, not only is Test cricket a non-inclusive Old Boys’ Club but even within that club, the structure is also absurdly top-heavy. It is not unusual for cricketers to choose T20 over Test cricket (everyone is likely to choose the option that pays more), but that count is dominated by the world beyond the Big Three. The top Test cricketers from the Big Three seldom give up careers to pursue T20.
The list is long and diverse, and does include some excellent Test cricketers. Chris Gayle is one of four men to hit two Test triple hundreds; while Trent Boult is the fourth-highest Test wicket-taker among left-arm fast bowlers. The Test careers of Quinton de Kock, Lasith Malinga, or Dwayne Bravo never lived up to their immense skills. All were from the Middle Six. Had they been from the Small Three, they would probably have seen the game like Rashid and quit long ago. How long before the gap between the Big Three and the rest becomes insurmountable?
Test cricket is the “ultimate test between the bat and the ball”, the pundits and cricketers will tell you. The “best format” of cricket, unfortunately, has been slowly pushing potential greats away from it by being too lopsided to be deemed fair.
Test cricket is losing its greatest asset – the cricketers – not because T20 is intrusive but because it is more inclusive than cricket’s “purest” format.
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including live scores, match stats, quizzes and more. Stay up to date with the latest cricket news, player updates, team standings, match highlights, video analysis and live match odds.
