Former Australia's star speedster Mitchell Johnson has strongly criticised Cricket Australia (CA) CEO Todd Greenberg for his recent comments regarding the future of Test cricket. Greenberg had suggested that the five-day format should be limited to a select group of nations, arguing that it is financially unsustainable for smaller cricket boards. Johnson's condemnation highlights a clear disagreement with this perspective.
Mitchell Johnson lambasts CA CEO's contentious remark on Test cricket
In an interview with the BBC, Greenberg had emphasised that expanding the number of Test-playing nations was not a viable path forward for the sport. Instead, he proposed that the focus should be on promoting high-profile, five-match series, such as the Ashes, to ensure the format's financial health. His remarks have ignited a debate about the accessibility and sustainability of Test cricket on a global scale.
“I don’t think everyone in world cricket needs to aspire to play test cricket, and that might be Ok. We’re literally trying to send countries bankrupt if we force them to try to play test cricket. Scarcity in Test cricket is our friend, not our foe. We need to make sure we invest in the right spaces to play Test cricket where it means something and has jeopardy. That’s why the Ashes will be as enormous and profitable as it is — because it means something,” Greenberg had earlier said.
Johnson, who played 73 Tests for Australia and took 313 wickets, however disagrees with Greenberg's viewpoint, arguing that restricting Test cricket to a handful of nations is not the way to save the format. He believes that the solution lies in helping smaller cricketing nations grow and improve. Johnson pointed out that players, fans, and the countries themselves want to be part of the Test cricket world.
Instead of limiting the game, Johnson feels that established boards like Cricket Australia should focus on supporting the development of these emerging nations. He suggests that fostering the growth of the sport globally is the best way to ensure the long-term health and relevance of Test cricket.
“Here’s the thing — if that’s the fear, then we’ve already missed the point. The solution to saving Test cricket isn’t to scale it down to three or four rich countries. It’s to lift the rest up. Help them. Grow the game. Back them. This is where real leadership starts — not by pulling up the ladder, but by building a stronger base. Because let’s be clear: these nations want to play Test cricket. The players want it. The fans want it. So why are we making it so hard? I’ve been to countries where cricket isn’t backed by billion-dollar TV deals — but the passion is still there," Johnson wrote in his column for The West Australian.
Instead of simply providing financial assistance, he argues that the 'Big Three', Australia, England, and India, should offer hands-on guidance and be physically present to help these boards develop the game from the ground up. According to Johnson, this approach would not only build the sport at the grassroots level but also help engage new audiences. He stressed that for Test cricket to truly thrive and grow, it needs more participating countries, not fewer. His stance advocates for a collaborative and inclusive approach to securing the format's future.
“Because here’s the reality: if we only leave Test cricket to the wealthy, it dies a slow death," Johnson said. “Fans see through that. Players lose hope. And one by one, countries quietly drift towards the formats that pay quicker and hurt less. West Indies cricket has been an example of this. But Test cricket is supposed to hurt. It’s supposed to demand more. That’s the beauty of it. You don’t earn a baggy green or a Test cap because you’ve bowled four overs, including a couple in the powerplay," Johnson added.
“You earn it over years — through bruises, setbacks, second-innings spells in 40C heat when your body says no and your heart says yes. And that feeling isn’t exclusive to Australia or India or England. It lives in the soul of every young cricketer from all parts of the world. The only difference is opportunity," he concluded.