Cricket is traditionally known as the "gentleman's game" due to its association with fair play, sportsmanship and mutual respect. Cricket remains one of the very few remaining sports played in long trousers; its white clothing could symbolise purity. In its early development in England, it was primarily played by the upper classes. The emphasis on values, often referred to as the "Spirit of Cricket," is enshrined in the Laws (not rules, please note) and traditions of the game. Cricket is the only sport that has produced great literature, from Neville Cardus to Henry Newbolt (in his poem Vitae Lampada) to Ramachandra Guha.

Lords cricket ground in central London, address of the Marylebone Cricket Club, had till 1963 separate dressing rooms for gentlemen (amateurs who were paid nothing) and players (paid professionals). Cambridge and Oxford universities played matches there, as did Eton and Harrow. The ‘bodyline’ series in 1932 in Australia instigated by England captain Douglas Jardine led to common outrage both in Australia and England, leading to changes in the Laws. There were murmurs of concern in the Lords Long Room when England was first led by a ‘player’ in 1952.

That was then. Australian media millionaire Kerry Packer in the 1970s and 1980s led the departure from the white clothing of equality to football-style coloured kit, and shattered the fundamental ethical code of not playing the game against white-dominated apartheid South Africa.

Now cricket has become a performative display of temper, foul language and aggression both on and off the playing field. Coaches and support staff give rein to bad manners, such as reminding ground staff in patrician manner of their lowly status. The stump microphones eavesdrop on verbal exchanges between batters and fielders that exceed the bounds of jest and propriety to rank taunts and personal abuse including about family members. As Ravi Shastri on Sky Sports said without irony recently, “The first hour was watchful — really good bowling, plenty of chat out there in the face of the batsmen, the fielders as well as the bowlers.”

Each fallen wicket provokes wild scenes of celebrations, and like ‘seconds’ at a boxing match, support staff from both teams rush on the field at every pause with refreshments and presumably counsel from the dressing room. Pitch invasions by ardent fans are not uncommon and police ring the field facing outward towards potentially unruly spectators

No one enjoys these deviations from the spirit of cricket more than old people who have never played sports and youngsters playing truant from school riveted to TV screens or mobile phones all day. In their view, overt confrontation adds a desirable spice to an otherwise languid game.

Captains are often setting the worst example. In India, cricket has long ago replaced hockey as the national game. A lantern-jawed Indian star raced across the turf flailing his arms like a whirling dervish in an Indian version of Maori haka intimidation. A legendary player, perhaps the last to eschew protective clothing and body armour in an epitome of courage, writes columns on exchanges of unsporting behaviour with no critique for violations of the spirit in which cricket is supposed to be played. No less is the emphasis by television coverage commentators, most of them past players of note, on anatomising the bad-tempered exchanges, deliberate collisions, purposive time-wasting and showing manifest dissent with umpires.

There was once a sacred convention that the umpire’s decision was final. For decades, this was unchallenged. ‘Neutral’ umpires from third countries were then introduced to avoid allegations of bias. But as standards fell, Captains continued to make their dissent known in ‘unparliamentary’ language, often deplorably racial in character. This introduced a ‘review third umpire’ in the stands behind a video screen. Soon enough, the third umpire will also be challenged and a further review will be permitted. So when does final become final?

There are match referees now introduced to monitor unseemly behaviour. The penalties handed down by these referees are so derisory, mere slaps on the wrist, and fines handed down that the multi-millionaire players could only scoff at.

There is a Board of Control for Cricket in India, but its ability to control or influence player behaviour is non-existent since its emphasis is on revenue and not ethics. Despite judicial investigations, its character has remained autonomous and unanswerable, the more so since Jay Shah, former secretary of the BCCI and currently chairman of the International Cricket Council, is son of the Union home minister. Small wonder that the cricket heroes neither collectively nor individually supported the female wrestlers’ justified allegations of sexual predation in the Wrestling Federation.

So what can be done to restore the gentleman’s game, if indeed that is an objective, instead of the current warfare without weapons? Are the deteriorating standards a manifestation of the general vulgarisation of social values, or the fault of the captains and players on the field, the TV coverage, the print media, the former players, the umpires or the referees? Or are all equally complicit? How could this unseemly trend be reversed; by sharper penalties, bans, or disqualifications? If there are no more gentlemen playing the game, then allow the free-for-all to continue unchecked, starting at school and university level.

No international team is exempt from the reputation of bad behaviour. Perhaps New Zealand comes closest to playing the gentleman’s game like gentlemen, and they win matches. But no other side takes them as an exemplar. Women’s cricket mercifully does not suffer from deviations in proper etiquette but these are early days; the media baying for red-meat to propel ratings have still not taken sufficient interest in the ladies game to corrupt it.

In short, let us lament the demise of cricket as the gentleman’s game; it has long ceased to be so. “Times change and we change with them”, as the Roman poet Arbiter wrote in 600 AD. Before long, cricket hooligans will arrive on the scene to emulate their brethren the football hooligans.

Krishnan Srinivasan is a former foreign secretary and author.

This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.