The ICC is doing two things by holding out these olive branches. One, it is doing its utmost to save the tour. Nothing can be more alarming for the ICC than the prospect of its schedules being overturned — today a team could do it as protest against perceived injustice, tomorrow it could be on a whim or, horror, for more commercially lucrative options. Two, it is — or so we hope — trying to revive popular affection for cricket. Lots have gone wrong on the field in series past — and each time, whether after the outrages of Douglas Jardine’s “leg theory” or even the ferocity of the West

Indian fast attack in the 1970s, the laws of the game were amended to avert such episodes thereafter. And all was usually well once again. But today, live telecasts, spectacularly revealing camera work, and media outlets that bring in voices from the street have changed the way sport is consumed. Cricket’s world is no longer that receptive to mere amendments for future games to rectify injustices in previous ones.

It’s a revolutionary thought, and it is being uttered softly. But it is a suggestion that the bosses in the ICC need to hear and consider before the street gets loud in demanding its implementation. When officiating at matches has been atrocious enough to gain the ICC’s concession that change of personnel is required, it is serious. What then happens to the results entered into the record books on account of those errors? In other words, what could be the criteria for demanding and gaining the annulment of particular Test matches? Make no mistake, the questions of Sydney-gate are with us still.