The soul responsibility

Put your finger to the pulse of cricket at the end of the game's most tumultuous year since the Packer era, if not ever, and everyone should feel a little worried for the patient.

But don't order the lilies yet. The game is not going to disappear, although fissures have already appeared and are widening, and the prospects of a split, however temporary, ought not be disregarded. But cricket, that wonderful accidental creation, even more than other Johnny-come-lately sports such as football and rugby, is too strong to commit suicide, with too much history and too many friends. For the love of Dr Grace, if it has not killed itself by now, it never will.

But it will be rough going over the next couple of years as we try to come to grips with a virulent outbreak of greed on several fronts. Lalit Modi and Allen Stanford might not read the situation this way but the immediate future of the game is in their hands, not those of the ICC or individual boards. It is up to them, as the providers of truly obscene amounts of money, to lend a measure of dignity to their wealth creation.

We saw Sir Allen, under duress, make some accommodation for the sensibilities of his guests during his eponymous ego-fest in Antigua, when he took his hand off the knees of the Wags and conceded that, yes, maybe it was as well for him to keep his nose out of the dressing room (although it was a bit precious of the England team to complain about this minor irritation when invited to compete for $1 million each. Wear it, guys).

Modi? He rules India. And India rules cricket. Simple. It is up to him to handle the responsibility, to look at the wider picture, to understand that, if he continues to throw his weight around, if the schedule of his Indian Premier League skews the international programme, he risks unravelling the fabric of Test cricket.

Unlike Stanford, Modi professes to like the longer form of the game. Why wouldn't he? India are on a bounce over five days and Australia's hegemony has come to an end. So India could be the epicentre of the two diverse forms of the game within 12 months. That is not a bad thing in itself. They have wonderful players and are playing some inspired cricket. But there has to be neutral focus. We cannot have Modi and his bankers dictating who plays where and when outside the remit of his own competition. If the ICC had sufficient clout left, there would be no concern about India's rise. But the clear suspicion is that, just as the MCC once ruled the game so imperiously from Lord's, sometimes to the detriment of the development of emerging cricket nations, so the shift to India ignores wider concerns.

And the overriding sentiment should be to preserve cricket's integrity across national boundaries. Great as the success of the IPL has been, and heartening as it is to see Australians and Indians and Sri Lankans in the same team, ignoring often bitter rivalries, this is a manufactured environment. It has a short history - and, we hope, a long future. But there are real concerns away from the hubbub and excitement of Mumbai and Chennai about what matters any more.

The Packer revolution showed that most (though not all) players have their price, and it is proving that way with the IPL. Professionals are looking at the golden pot and wondering why they should not be able to dip into it.

That is where Modi's sense of responsibility has to kick in. Signs are not encouraging. It is as if every administrator in the game is scared of upsetting him. That cannot be healthy for cricket. The concept of cricket as a vehicle for making quick cash is as old as curved bats, the betting baby of scoundrels such as the Duke of Cumberland and other silk-stockinged dilettantes of the Georgian era.

Yet, for all the scandals and controversies, it has managed to hang on to vestiges of its dignity. In that, it is a rare sporting institution - although not unique. Only professional fist-fighting, perhaps, stands alongside cricket for longevity as part of the international sports entertainment industry, both of them able to look back on a couple of wild centuries of ups, downs, skulduggery and heroics.

In times of crisis - Bodyline, Packer, match-fixing - there has been a consensus, a universal will to fix things, in cricket. We need that strength of leadership now. We need people not so much of vision - Modi and Stanford have enough of that - but responsibility and judgment.

There are slivers of evidence that cricket has a chance of cracking the huge entertainment market in America - even a flicker of interest in China. They are huge markets. Now that would be a revolution to savour.

Nevertheless it would be the saddest paradox if cricket discovered a formula that might one day spread the game way beyond its old imperial boundaries only to start eating away at its own soul through unfettered avarice. I do not think it will come to that. I hope I am not wrong.