Australia are already fielding different Test and T20I sides and it could well be the way forward. ©Getty

If I was a fan at the Wanderers in Johannesburg on February 18, and had paid good money for my ticket, I would have been mighty miffed to watch a team without Hashim Amla, Kagiso Rabada, Lungi Ngidi, Morne Morkel and AB de Villiers take the field representing South Africa. Two other players, Faf du Plessis and Quinton de Kock, were already out because of injury and that meant that the South African fan, whose money is important, was offered a virtually second string team to support. He had a right to be angry and so would those that invest in the game.

In recent times, Australia have scheduled tours that clash with their international T20 commitments and England pulled out key players from their triangular series in Australia and New Zealand. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion between how the playing side of the game perceives T20 internationals and how the commercial side charged with securing more money does.

And so we have a peculiar situation where the biggest money-earner, certainly in our part of the world, and a form of the game that is a selling point in rights negotiations, is given the least importance by those that put together teams. Both sides have a point and it will be interesting to see how long the commercial side can be kept at bay! I believe it is untenable and those that pay the money will either insist on a lesser fee or demand that the best are made available.

South Africa's situation is interesting. Within five days from the end of the last T20 international, they play the first of four Test matches against Australia, an opponent that heightens passion and the defeat of whom would be deeply satisfying. It makes sense to keep their best players, especially the fast bowlers fit and mentally fresh after a tough series against India. But it also assumes that the T20 match against India, with significantly higher viewership and sponsorship revenue at stake, is seen as a lesser contest. And the administrators are willing to let a more expensive product be devalued in favour of a financially less lucrative but heritage product. A conflict is inevitable and I won't be surprised if there is one already because you cannot take liberties with your biggest bread-earner.

Trevor Bayliss, England's coach, argues that the T20 international should be scrapped and this form of the game restricted to franchise based tournaments. He thinks it is fine to play a few games six months before the next World T20 and you can see, in his statement, a stressed national coach who has to prepare teams for all three forms at a frequency that is draining. Mike Hesson, New Zealand's coach, offers a powerful counterpoint. There were full houses to watch New Zealand play their home T20 internationals and he thinks that is something his players would enjoy. There is also the opportunity to wear national colours for those that may not make the test team.

So, prestige and history? Or commerce and entertainment? I believe it is an easier issue for the likes of India, England and Australia to address since they are well-funded and can afford to maintain a balance between all three forms. India, in particular, can because a major part of the revenue comes from the IPL. But ask the more cash-strapped cricket boards if they can reduce the number of T20 internationals in favour of more test matches and you are likely to get a resounding answer. Neither of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, New Zealand or Windies have a lucrative franchise based T20 tournament and must depend, for their revenues, on what they get from television or sponsorship of the national team. The more T20 games they play, the higher the value of their commercial package.

It is untenable going ahead that T20 be part of the rights package but that the best players stay away from it and administrators will have to separate marquee Test series from other forms of the game. In doing so, they will accord the importance they, and we, believe these matches tinged with history deserve and will not let them come in the way of short-form cricket. Unless of course, franchise-based T20 cricket begins throwing up more specialists who couldn't be bothered by Test cricket and we are in a position to have completely different teams playing Test cricket and T20 cricket. Australia is getting there and it might well be the future.

We need to preserve Test cricket because it is the most nuanced form of the game, indeed it mimics life itself and the challenge before administrators now is how much of each form to offer. You cannot pack everything like young men stuffing clothes into an almirah.

But for the moment it's time we gave the little fellow who brings in the money a bit more respect.