The Botham Report . . . The MacLaurin Report . . . the latest in a long series of Ashes humiliations . . . a beleaguered captain . . . declining standards of play and behaviour . . . falling attendances at County Championship matches; the plight of the game in England has sparked a national debate.

But if cricket is under threat of extinction, as Botham suggests, why is it so difficult to procure a ticket for Test matches? Why do millions follow every ball on TV, radio or Ceefax with undiluted intensity? Why does the present generation of weekend players display all the passion and joy of their forefathers on village greens across the land?

Confused by these conflicting images, I consulted the oracle. E W (Jim) Swanton, writer, broadcaster and former Daily Telegraph cricket correspondent who, at the age of 90, is the font of all knowledge on matters cricketing. Nine decades after, as a five-month-old baby in his pram on the pavilion balcony at Forest Hill, he 'witnessed' W G Grace make 140, Jim's enthusiasm remains as sparkling and refreshing as the vintage champagne he pours to lubricate our vocal chords . . .

RP: Is it my imagination, or do we tend to suffer a rash of 'Cricket in crisis' headlines whenever the Ashes happen to be in the possession of Australia? Surely Botham is guilty of exaggeration when he says 'adapt or die'?

EWS: I think there is probably less wrong with the game than a lot of people make out. As you know, our colleagues in the media are prone to exaggeration. Everybody has been shouting about a crisis because we've been losing Test matches, but of course cricket is not going to die. The prosperity of the game is not being reflected by the results of the international side, but we must never forget the great strides forward made by the other Test countries, especially some of the smaller ones like Sri Lanka.

RP: All sports go in cycles, don't they? Take tennis: it is not so very long ago that Britain was ranked alongside Azerbaijan and Upper Volta, yet in July, we suddenly found ourselves with two men in the quarter-finals at Wimbledon. Even if English cricket refuses to change one iota, by the law of averages the Aussies must surrender the Ashes sometime, mustn't they?

EWS: Yes, I would have to agree. You see, it's not true to suggest that we haven't produced any good young cricketers recently: Darren Gough, of Yorkshire, for instance, and Robert Croft, at Glamorgan; Surrey's Hollioake brothers could also be destined for greatness. Adam made a splendid job of captaining the England A team, while Ben greatly impressed on his one-day international debut against Australia. And we've still to see the very best of John Crawley, whom I would have chosen as the next England captain had Mike Atherton stood down.

RP: So why, then, this latest outbreak of breast-beating? Why is the sniff of revolution in the air; a revolution which, if I have understood the dissidents correctly, would inevitably lead to promotion and relegation in the County Championship, multi-million-pound transfers, cheerleaders, red and yellow cards, and ever more garish 'home-and-away' pyjamas? Personally, I subscribe to the Rip van Winkle theory; i.e., if a cricket fan were to wake up in the year 2050 and trundle along to Lord's, he would instantly recognise the scene and the game being played. Take the modern cricketer's wardrobe. If Babe Ruth returned for one day, he would happen upon the New York Yankees playing in the same white uniforms with navy blue pinstripes he wore 70 years ago. But if W G Grace dropped in on the Oval one Sunday, he would probably find the Surrey players dressed as Superman and participating in an undignified 40-over slog. What say you?

EWS: In the context of a green field in summer sunshine, coloured clothing is a blasphemy. It all started with this night cricket thing when they had to have some colour against the white ball. And that was pretty reasonable. But there's no earthly reason why we need them in England except to entice the kiddies to buy them, thereby generating more money, money, money. Unfortunately, this new one-day competition which starts in 1999 will include day-and-night matches and presumably the players will have to wear colours. But that's no reason why coloured clothing should be so gaudy and ghastly as it is. Rugby School have worn sky blue shirts and white trousers since time immemorial and very attractive they look, too. I have nothing against pastel shades with white trousers - in fact, that's what I'd like to see worn in the World Cup - but that wouldn't satisfy the marketing boys. Light blue would be considered far too dull. Another drop of champagne?

RP: I suppose Ian Botham and his like-minded ilk will think we're nothing but a pair of entrenched reactionaries on reading this?

EWS: Everybody thinks I'm a died-in-the-wool traditionalist, who never wants anything new, but that's not exactly so. I would be perfectly happy if they wore numbers on their backs in this one-day stuff, for example. It's very difficult to identify cricketers now, especially when they're wearing helmets. It would help spectators to know which batsman's which and to identify the fielders.

RP: Would you advocate numbers even for Test matches?

EWS: Yes, even for Test matches. Ah, I rather think we are being called through for lunch . . .

(We repair to the dining-room of Jim's idyllic 18th century cottage on the Kent coast, where we find Ann Swanton - not to mention a succulent rack of lamb - awaiting us. A former concert pianist, Ann's unique claim to fame is that she has performed duets with Sir Noel Coward and Sir Donald Bradman.)

RP (between mouthfuls of pink lamb and champagne): One-day cricket attracts huge crowds and frequently provides heart-stopping excitement. But am I right in thinking you don't wholly approve of the limited-over version?

EWS: We shouldn't become too snooty about it because one-day cricket requires many of the basic skills. But one of the criticisms I've heard of Lord MacLaurin's report - which is a very impressive document, I have to say - is the amount of proposed one-day stuff. One-day cricket doesn't make a cricketer; the object of the game as it has been pursued for centuries is for the batting side to score runs and for the fielding side to take wickets. If you want the three main reasons for the lack of great English batsmen and bowlers coming through in recent times, they are the plethora of one-day competition, covered pitches and the four-day formula for County Championship games.

RP: Let's quickly run through some of Botham's other suggestions. ``Contract an elite international squad to the central board?''

EWS: No. The County Championship must serve as the basis for the game in England.

RP: ``A two-division championship with promotion and relegation?''

EWS: No. All the counties contribute their own characteristics and flavour.

RP: ``Appoint a chief executive with unfettered powers?''

EWS: A chief executive like Ian Botham, by any chance? No, no, no, no, no, no. I couldn't agree with this less. We had a bit of that with Ray Illingworth and thank goodness it didn't work. So far as the England team is concerned, the more you give to a personality like Illingworth, the less power resides in the captain. And the chap who carries the can is the captain, as poor Mike Atherton will tell you with perhaps a good deal of bitterness.

RP: So, let us assume the foundations of the game are as sound as ever, what are the main problems cricket has to confront as it approaches the third millennium? Sledging? Physical confrontations?

EWS: Law 42 on unfair play - which, incidentally, is now the longest law in cricket - states: ``The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit of the game as well as within the laws.'' There is no sterner guardian of the principles of cricket than Colin Cowdrey and he abhors what he calls ``noise round the bat''. What some modern players do is to talk and talk and talk at the batsman, at each other, at everything. This last series between England and Australia was conducted pretty well because Mark Taylor is a good man, but the Australians are the real culprits in bringing the word 'sledging' into cricket and it's the root cause of a lot of the trouble today. I don't know if you saw that disgraceful semi-final of the NatWest between Essex and Glamorgan at Chelsmford but I was delighted Irani and Law, of Essex, have been severely reprimanded for their behaviour. We had a match recently in the Kent League when a bowler butted a team-mate after he fluffed the catch. And so one of them was ordered from the field; the other was carried off and taken to hospital. All the talk now is that English cricket must become more competitive. As if Compton and May and Dexter and Cowdrey weren't competitive. But competitive shouldn't equate with yobbishness. Do help yourself to another roast potato and a glass of champagne.

RP: I can't imagine there has ever been a more competitive cricketer than Gary Sobers. Earlier, you talked about the ``spirit'' of the game. Surely Sobers more than any other personality epitomises all that is wonderful about cricket?

EWS: So far as I'm concerned, Gary Sobers is the ideal cricketer and, incidentally, the greatest. He came from a little wooden house in Barbados, his father had been drowned in the war and he was brought up by his mother and grandmother. On the pitch, his attitude was superb. He never once over-stepped the line in any respect, he was a great, great sportsman. I've just been watching a video of the famous tied Test match between Australia and the West Indies in 1960-61, in Brisbane, when he made 130 in less than three hours. That innings ought to be seen by every cricketer everywhere.

RP: Instead of marketing purple pyjamas, shouldn't cricket be trying to market the spirit of Gary Sobers, in that case? Is there so very much wrong with a game which is played with such sportsmanship and camaraderie? Surely it is the traditions embodied by Gary Sobers which will enchant the next generation, not flashy gimmicks?

EWS: I think that's absolutely true. Modern players talk about needing motivation and advice, yet they're pretty reluctant to listen to the voices of their elders. A lot of it boils down to character. Cricket is a slow-moving game and as such is a mirror of character more than any other game.

RP: But how can we sell those virtues to a 10-year-old poised over a Nintendo computer game?

EWS: Well, it's not going to be easy because as old Cardus used to say, cricket really is a reflection of the society in which it moves, just like the other arts are. Therefore, it's evolving all the time. You know the sort of age we're living in; respect for authority is so much less, respect for dress is so much less, respect for manners is so much less. All one can do is to try and keep everyone reminded of its values. Old geriatrics like me talk about the fellowship of cricket, but that fellowship is a precious thing and something which we must strive to preserve.

My final thoughts after re-reading The Swanton Report? Cricket will ignore the wisdom of the ancients at its peril.

13 January 1997: Gentleman who relishes a game which truly reflects character