Cricket faces an uphill battle to rid itself of its exclusionary face

What do they know of cricket who only cricket know, asked the great CLR James. He talked of cricket as a prism through which we might view society, and that remains as true now as in 1963, when Beyond a Boundary, his masterwork, was published.

- Mihir Bose

But despite the lofty claims those of us who love the game make for it, cricket cannot offer a true reflection of life or of sport in general. Cricket stands apart. Cricket is different.

That's the first thing to know as we consider an exhilarating Ashes contest, but also the cloud of the damning Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket (ICEC) report. It found the English game blighted by "widespread and deep-rooted" racism, sexism, elitism and class-based discrimination at all levels.

In cricket, more than any other game, what happens off the field is as important as what happens on it. In football and rugby, both teams contest the same ball. In tennis, rivals volley over a shared net using the same equipment. And yet, cricket sees players act in uniquely opposing ways. Eleven teammates gather with a leather ball to stop two batters from scampering 22 yards (20 metres) to score runs. The objective is inherently exclusionary - to make sure the batters are forced off the field of play and relegated to the sidelines.

Cricket has long reeked of the English obsession with class. Until the 1960s, two tiers of cricketers existed: amateurs, who were called gentlemen, and professionals, who were called players. There were even separate changing rooms. In such a stratified game, social mingling in a match acquires a huge significance. There is a dance of human interaction and social norms.