Cricket is an anachronism. Conceived as a leisure activity for Victorian gentlemen, it spread piggyback on the British Empire to the colonies. It has struggled for the better part of the 20th century, and certainly in the present one, against the intrusion of professionals and commercialization. It is one of the not-so-tacit assumptions of the advocates of cricket that it is not about money, or even about winning: it is about playing the game. Cricket, the myth says, carries over the values of the English public school into the playing fields of the colonies. Cricket has thus suffered from a perpetual identity crisis. Is it a way of life or only a game like any other? The problems created by the maverick intervention of Kerry Packer, the controversy created by betting and the taint put on the game by match-fixing are all symptoms of that crisis. Cricket’s originary and mythical aspects pull in the direction of it being a gentleman’s game, while its reality pulls in the direction of increasing professionalization. The real challenge before cricket is its ability to refashion itself to meet the demands of a new and changing world. The failure to do so will reduce cricket to a petrified sport, with Lord’s and other famous cricketing grounds serving as permanent museum sites. There are signs — the Indian Premier League players’ auction is one of them — that cricket can change to survive instead of bemoaning that time is out of joint.

Time may not be out of joint for cricket in India, but time is certainly running out for cricket even in India. It is significant that none of the great economic superpowers of the 20th and the 21st century play cricket or have the remotest interest in the game. As India emerges from economic hibernation to stake its claims in the world economic order as a major and important player, it will also make cricket irrelevant to its leisure. The importance of cricket in the Indian psyche will diminish as India grows as a global economic power. Cricket, unlike football, is not an inclusive sport. It demands time even to watch. Its rules and conventions are too complicated and arcane for most people to understand. It thus alienates large sections of the people. In a different world, cricket had its charm; so did Helen of Troy. But in the 21st century she may not have launched a tug-boat let alone a thousand ships. The swansong of old-world cricket may well be its saving grace.