MUMBAI: 2004 — that is when New Zealand, Pakistan, and West Indies women last played a Test match. For South Africa, that year was 2007 before their hiccup-like revival in the format — first against India in 2014 and later against England in June 2022. Ireland played their first and only Test in 2000. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe women have never played a Test among the full-member nations. Afghanistan do not have a women's team since the Taliban government took over.
After a hesitation over a long period, India are finally coming around to the idea of playing more Tests than they previously did. This leaves England and Australia, these two countries that have played 52 Tests between themselves over 89 years. This is the reality of women's cricket. Some have done it because it's the tradition. Some are slowly finding their way. Some have decided to accept the invitations, while others have ignored the format like junk email that keeps piling in one's inbox.
For many years, especially in women's cricket, the pattern was set. Australia would come up with something. England followed it, but none of it became big or mattered enough until India got involved. Take, for example, franchise cricket. Women's Big Bash League, one of the earliest attempts to start a professional league based on the models of men's cricket, started in 2015.
England followed it with the Women's Super League in 2016. Later, the England and Wales Cricket Board started The Hundred for women along with men in 2023. However, the record-breaking valuation and broadcasting numbers didn't get attached to this type of league till BCCI started the Women's Premier League in 2023.
Which is why, India's involvement becomes necessary if more Tests are to be expected in the women's game. One of the legitimate reasons given for women from many cricketing nations not playing the red-ball fixture is lack of funds. However, these teams could adopt the multi-format points system followed in the Ashes. Teams who cannot afford to host Tests could play these fixtures at least when they are visiting countries that are playing the format regularly like England, Australia, or India. If one could keep the results aside for early years, these teams will get some opportunity to play in the format.
With the franchise leagues and bilateral series in these three countries, players from all over the world have played in India, England and Australia on multiple occasions. There is always a chance to start it with one team against one of the three regular Test-playing nations. For example, if West Indies play a Test in English conditions, India can play one against New Zealand or Australia can host a Test against Pakistan. Players like Sophie Devine, Suzie Bates, Stafanie Taylor, Nida Dar, Bismah Maroof and Chamari Athapaththu have dominated white-ball cricket throughout their careers, but unfortunately have never played in a Test match. Other than the three nations and South Africa, none of the other teams have seen their current players don whites.
For many, a Test is a luxury. Even men's teams cannot afford to host a lot of Tests. The governing bodies have also turned to the shortest format to expand the game beyond the ICC full member nations and rightly so. But while expanding the game, at least those who can host a Test and not have a dent in their finances can do so. And it wouldn't be new. In the past, England have hosted men's Tests between Pakistan and Australia. India have helped Afghanistan host a few Tests against West Indies and Ireland. Here, it's not even helping two other entities play a Test. One of the playing teams can always be the home team.
The joy of playing Test cricket is unmissable. Smiling Ellyse Perry from the Ashes earlier this year or Harmanpreet Kaur from the recent fixture against England are proof of that. That joy should not be limited to a few lucky ones. If those who can afford to make it happen for others take it seriously, playing a Test could be a reality for many legends of the women's game. Whether they will, only time will tell.
