Cricket has been eulogized since time immemorial. As one of the oldest established sports, it holds a hallowed, reverential place in the minds of billions of people across the globe. But this adulation is a jealous mistress; whatever bright idea seeks to improve on the game is immediately pounced on and devoured, like a hapless wildebeest that approaches a bask of crocodiles with a petition for peaceful coexistence. The verdict of this court of opinion is always the same: it's the death of cricket.
These days, every attempt to innovate, upgrade or develop the game is met with skepticism and hostility, from men with exorbitantly expensive Italian suits or nameless, faceless people sitting behind computer screens. Day-night tests? The death of cricket. Colored balls? The death of cricket. Twenty20? The death of cricket. The Champions League and Indian Premier League? The death of cricket. Attempts to break into the American market? The death of cricket. Featuring cricket at the Olympics or the Asian Games? The death of cricket. Giving more exposure to Associate countries? The death of cricket.
Which leads me to wonder, why stop at the modern age? If we cast our eyes backwards, any change to the game - however minute or far-reaching - was met with opposition. Standardizing the number of deliveries per over from four or eight, to six? The death of cricket. Introducing the helmet and, unforgivably, the grill? The death of cricket. Abolishing timeless Tests in favor of a five-day format? The death of cricket. Reducing ODIs from 60 or 55 overs to 50? The death of cricket. Not actually serving tea during the tea interval? The death of cricket. Yes, I jest, but the precedent remains true - the things we take for granted and defend so vociferously and vehemently were the same things that made our grandfathers rend the clothes from their backs and write angry letters to the editors of their local newspapers. The topic? The death of cricket, and how all these advances - helmets, colored clothes, formats that guarantee results - will forever tarnish the game they love.
If every change is brutally and mercilessly choked by lobbies so desperately determined to maintain and preserve their narrow and limited idea of "purity", then yes, cricket will die, and they will be the ones who kill it. Of course, every proposed innovation should be thoroughly vetted and debated before implementation or rejection. But the court of public opinion is rarely patient or logical, and if the billions of anonymous, faceless voices on the Internet have their way, the only cricket we would have would be unprotected batsmen fending off viscous bouncers to the jeers of a packed leg-side field.
Cricket does not have to sacrifice its tradition and its legacy to be vital and relevant outside its established borders in the 21st century. If cricket retreats into its shell and abandons any idea of modernizing, the world will pass it by and the game we all love will become an antiquated relic, a curious oddity that will appeal to no one but historians and time travelers. This paranoid, primal fear of change is not limited to cricket, by any means, but considering that this is just sport we're talking about - grown men hitting a ball, chasing after a ball, and throwing a ball over and over again - there are better things in life to get so protective about.