Try explaining the World Test Championship.

It’s not easy. The final, between Australia and South Africa at Lord’s last week, was a fascinating match, dominated by bowlers for the first two days before an unexpected twist which saw South Africa cruise home on the fourth morning of the match.

Two high-class attacks enjoyed the hint of sideways movement and occasional inconsistent bounce, which might have become a greater factor had the game gone into the last day.

As such, it was far more watchable than much of England’s two white ball series against West Indies, which took up the ten days preceding it, in which the ball regularly flew into the stands. Sixes are a thrilling part of cricket but when they come more frequently than speed restrictions on the M25 they lose the quality to excite and just become humdrum.

Bowlers come away feeling they deserve a medal for delivering overs which cost less than a run a ball and wondering if it would be best if they were replaced by machines which can be loaded to practise distance hitting.

Back to the World Test Championship, though, which was designed to give Test cricket context and help to keep it relevant despite the ever-growing threat of T20 cricket.

That makes sense, yet the rules which decide who finish in the top two - and thus the showpiece final - are a mix between a compromise and an outright mystery.

Australia got there on the back of 13 wins in 19 matches over the two-year cycle, a success rate of 67.54, topped by South Africa, who after winning eight of their 12 games had a rate of 69.44. Points can be deducted for a poor over rate, a concept which Ben Stokes – captain of England, who came fifth - has admitted he finds hard to understand.

The World Test Championship is designed to live alongside the tour programme already agreed between the nine Test-playing nations, rather than aiming for uniformity. That is a pragmatic approach by the International Cricket Council, which knows Australia and England’s Ashes battles are regarded as sacrosanct. Both countries want and need to play India regularly, for financial reasons, and there is no likelihood of India and Pakistan playing each other in a bilateral series, for political reasons.

Tests between the two have been fitful ever since partition and recent military skirmishes have made relations – and thus playing sport against each other – even frostier.

Even allowing for all that, South Africa’s place at the top of the list takes some swallowing. Most of their 12 matches in the 2023-25 cycle were played at home and at no stage did they take on Australia or England. They even sent a second – possibly third – string team to New Zealand, where they were beaten in both Tests in early 2024, so that the leading players could be involved in their domestic T20 competition.

That decision was born of necessity rather than desire, to a large extent, given South Africa’s precarious financial position.

But what happens now? South Africa’s next domestic season, our winter, contains no home Tests at all, which removes any chance their supporters can see the new world champions in action. Will this stir their administrators into thinking again? Because otherwise the World Test Championship victory will seem very hollow and push Test cricket further towards irrelevance.