International cricket is in a hopeless mess: profusion leading to confusion. Originally, there were meant to be 96 one-day internationals this winter - though that is now thought to be an under-estimate - all of them in bilateral, trilateral or quadrilateral series that rake in money, but have no wider validity or meaning to anyone.

This is supposed to be the future - though if it is, I shall slit my throat or, at the very least, give up editing Wisden and do something more satisfying.

Test cricket is not finished yet. There were supposed to be 33 Tests this winter, in 12 different series, but there are rumours of a lucky 13th. Several of these are mini-bites, of one or two games, scheduled as though out of habit. As with the one-dayers, they have no context. In many places hardly anyone turns up.

And so the cricketing world has divided itself into the gogetters, who look to the day when the United States will be playing Malaysia in a floodlit football stadium for a global satellite television audience, and us Swantonian diehards, lost amidst our Wisdens and our memories, ready to concede the 21st century to people who seem to have the force with them.

Don't be fooled by the massive advance bookings for England v Australia next summer. Across the world, traditional cricket is in terrible trouble, and those of us who believe that Test matches constitute the highest form of this game and the most subtle, beautiful and compelling sport in the world will have to fight to have any share of the future.

It is not yet a lost cause. Two years ago, in the 1995 Wisden, I began to argue the case for a world Test match championship. I have put the case again in The Guardian, and in the November issue of Wisden Cricket Monthly magazine I explained it in detail.

Suddenly, we seem to have a breakthrough. The response has been terrific. And on Monday, Ali Bacher announced that the United Cricket Board of South Africa supported my plan and would put it forward at the ICC meeting next summer.

So what is this all about? Please be assured - no one is going to have to spend six months traipsing round the subcontinent while this championship unfolds. Most plans to reform cricket seem to assume the world began yesterday and that we can start from scratch. This one recognises the realities that exist.

IT accepts that one-day cricket is there, is very popular, will go on, and ought to go on. It accepts that the game needs to make money. It accepts that Test-playing countries have commitments, and that England and Australia, for instance, will want to carry on playing each other home and away, at length, every four years. And so they should.

All that has to happen to make the world championship work is that all nine Test-playing countries will have to play each other, home and away, every four years. That is only a slight extension and formalisation of what happens anyway; England's fixture list would need very minor adjustments.

The point is that these series don't all have to comprise five of six Tests, though they can do if it suits the countries concerned. One or two - or three or four - would work just as well. But in the championship table each series, however long, would count the same: two points for winning, one for drawing, none for losing.

What that would mean is that the series which now count for least would suddenly assume a new importance. England are reluctant even to invite Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka because they fear Lord's would be empty. But if it were a game England had to win to go top of the table - or avoid going bottom - the appeal would be enormous.

Tests not involving England would also acquire new interest. There is massive sponsorship potential. Organisational costs would be minimal.

The world championship could work either on the basis of a separate event running over four years, ending with a winner and starting again with a clean slate, or a ``rolling'' competition, in which each new series replaced its equivalent in the table.

On that basis, we have already evolved a totally unofficial Wisden world championship, using the current, imperfect, fixture list.

That puts South Africa on top, just ahead of Australia and West Indies, which may explain the South Africans' enthusiasm. But unless they pull back their 1-0 deficit in India over the next couple of weeks, they will lose their advantage. Australia could be outright world leaders before the year is out.

England? Well, England are seventh out of nine, which might be one reason why there has been no response from Lord's yet. More significantly, the new England Cricket Board are only just gearing up.

If the new Board have any purpose at all, it must be to find ways of marketing the game successfully, while simultaneously enhancing its greatest traditions.

That is precisely the opportunity offered by a world championship.

Matthew Engel is editor of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack and a staff writer on The Guardian