When Kevin Pietersen hit what can be arguably described as the greatest shot seen this century against the Black Caps last week, he unwittingly created an atmosphere of doom and panic within cricket's corridors of power and influence.
The reason? Change.
They say you have to adapt to survive and cricket is exactly the type of sport where this specific mantra applies acutely. From the early days of test cricket in the 19th century cricket has been a slow, but constantly evolving form.
Whilst men like Pietersen continue to innovate and experiment they stretch the boundaries of cricket's perceived 'good taste'. And as a consequence feathers are ruffled.
But why have people jumped on this excitement nullifying bandwagon? It's my opinion that those who saw simple disdain for the game of cricket in Pietersen's doppelganger shot are those that feel cricket continues to ignore its footing in tradition and history. The easy metaphor to make here is that 21st century cricket is the brattish, know-it-all teenager, to history's wisened old sage.
Innovations such as Murali's wrist, the white ball, coloured kits, Twenty20 and now Pietersen's reverse fireworks are the very ingredients that strive to keep the game alive as we know it.
Games like football, tennis and basketball have hardly budged in the 100 or so years of their existence - simply because they haven't had to. However, had cricket not reacted to market forces over the years could anybody really envisage a 4-day IPL being remotely popular. No, I don't think so either.
So what Pietersen's shot, in one single instance, forced the cricketing powers to do rather uncomfortably, was to consider the evolution of the game in one dramatic, epic, glorious moment. They didn't like it. We loved it. And the good will out.
