Your rugby analogy does have a nice ring to it. One could also look at other sports such as athletics or tennis. The marathon is no less worthy than the 100m, or vice versa. They are simply different events within the sphere of running, and each attracts participants, viewers and sponsors according to talent and interest. Similarly in tennis, there has been increasing specialisation: while most of the top singles players do not play doubles, the best doubles players can now earn a healthy living on the doubles circuit.

As far as cricket is concerned, I personally enjoy all forms of the game. And it is clear that fans are voting with their feet and are supporting the 20:20 version of the game in increasing numbers. This in turn means significant opportunities for rights-holders and sponsors to increase brand awareness and loyalty and to generate more revenue.

And yet…Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I think the primacy of test cricket isn’t simply based on a romanticised notion of the game’s past. It really is the most exacting form of the game for the players, and remains the one where reputations of sporting greatness are forged (even though ODI cricket has been around for decades). And if Sachin Tendulkar for example had been forced (or encouraged) by an excessive workload, tight schedules or simply prevailing norms to limit himself to a single format of the game, would cricket, its fans and sponsors be better off? I don’t think so.

So while I agree with you that plurality of formats is here to stay and is indeed good for the sport, I think the game’s administrators should work harder to ensure a future where fans at the ground, television viewers and sponsors can see as many of the top players as possible play in all forms of the game. Of course this will be tough, and there are many competing agendas, but I believe it’s possible. Cricket doesn’t need to go down the rugby route just yet.