International sport is naturally given to the creation of winners and losers, heroes and villains and, more often than not, a nailbiting helping of human drama. But in 2008, the cricketing world dominated almost as many front pages as it did sports sections. Indeed, it may be remembered as the year when off-field considerations - the political intrigue behind the rival Twenty20 leagues, the multi-million dollar Stanford circus, England's withdrawal - and ultimate return - to a terror-torn India - left the business of mere runs and wickets somewhat in the shade.
That is not to say that spectators have been denied their fair share of thrills and spills in the middle. Brendon McCullum's genre-defining 158 not out in the inaugural match of the Indian Premier League, the dazzling arrival of Sri Lanka's new mystery spinner Ajantha Mendis and two gargantuan fourth-innings chases in December, will all live long in the collective memory. Add to that the hint of a new world order - all-conquering Australia now looking vulnerable, India and South Africa doing battle for the title of Test cricket's best pace attack, England readying themselves for an Ashes summer under the Hollywood leadership of Kevin Pietersen - and 2008 may also be seen as the beginning of something exciting on the pitch.
Much of that enthusiasm, though, could have been extinguished by some of the non-cricketing realities of the modern world. The cancellation of the maiden Twenty20 Champions League was a regrettable consequence of the horrendous attacks on Mumbai. But had England decided to remain at home instead of fulfilling their two-Test commitment in India, it could have cast a shadow over the mid-term future of the sport in its current form.
Such statements may seem reactionary, but the resolve on all sides to stand as one against the atrocities in November and proceed in contesting the matches - albeit with a suitably revised schedule and security detail - could prove an important precedent for the sport. With gruesome television images fresh in their mind, few could have genuinely blamed the players from either side had they opted to stay out of the public arena at a time of potential turmoil.
Instead the squads banded together to ensure the Tests would go ahead. Not only did the parties, both players and powerbrokers, embrace the chance to unite those terrorism had sought to disrupt, they also set forth a model for the continuation of cross-continental tours in even the harshest of circumstances. Had safety fears been allowed to wreak havoc on international touring schedules, how far would the shockwaves have been felt? India's subsequent decision not to tour Pakistan in January was because of circumstances more rife with more historical concerns and potential antagonism. Had England opted for a similar stance it could have the start of a slippery slope.
Would Australia's slated tour to India next year have come under closer scrutiny? Would Ricky Ponting and co have welcomed playing in an environment deemed unsafe for their English counterparts? If not, then what likelihood New Zealand fulfilling their own trip in 2010? Admittedly, such a domino effect is not a certainty, but it is far from an impossibility that India could have briefly become a pariah. From there it is only a short step to looking with deeper suspicion at the instability in Pakistan and pondering the long-range prospects of any side touring there.
But, of course, no venue or host nation can ever be given a 100 per cent guarantee of safety. At the time of the 2005 underground attacks on London, Australia were touring England and the sides played at Lord's just weeks later. That series, of course, went on to become one of the most famous in living memory. The lessons to be learned from that - and from England's recent experiences in India - are that sportsmen can do more than entertain the masses. They can help rebuild the morale and confidence of a nation.
Such a resolution, though, would not have been possible without the offer of Abu Dhabi as a luxury holding pen for England's tourists. That England coach Peter Moores was able to present his side with a training camp that offered security, top-range facilities and the offer of a neutral Test venue should no satisfactory agreement be reached, was critical in getting the tour back on its feet. Abu Dhabi has already stepped in to host a one-day series between Pakistan and the West Indies and, after their offer to act as a neutral venue for the Pakistan-India series was overlooked, is also ready to lay out the welcome mat for India and England early next year.
It is, therefore, an increasingly active and relevant member of the international cricketing community. Indeed, the readiness of the emirate's administrators to act as surrogate host may become a trump card for the ICC as they strive to keep their Future Tours Programme on track. Cricket Australia's decision not to travel to Pakistan in March was understandable given escalating violence in the region at the time, but the result is that Pakistan will end 2008 having not played any Test cricket. That is something which cannot be allowed to happen again; Test cricket is too small a family already.
It is also why the Pakistan Cricket Board were open to the forthcoming India Tests being relocated rather than rearranged. With both the Champions Trophy and the Champions League tournaments falling foul of extremism this year, there appears to be a chance for the likes of Abu Dhabi and Sharjah to bid for higher-profile tournaments and become a valuable stakeholder in the game. There have, though, been other talking points in 2008, starting with Sir Allen Stanford's attempts to buy his way into cricket's inner circle with a money-mad Super Series between England and a West Indian select XI
The initial signs were good. Stanford ensured the headlines with his outlandish $20million (Dh73m), winner-takes-all concept, while a host of modern greats, including Ian Botham, Viv Richards and Desmond Haynes, lent the launch genuine cricketing legitimacy. Ultimately that was eroded by a host of organisational errors, a pitch which was not fit for purpose, an unseemly sponsorship row, and the much-hyped final turning out to be a damp squib as England's lions were tamed without a hint of a roar.
There was more excitement to be had in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, where India ended a seven-year itch to follow up their famous 2001 series win against Australia with an odds-defying 2-0 victory. And what a victory. Like VVS Laxman in 2001, Gautam Gambhir took the chance to announce himself as a batsman of true pedigree against the world's number one team, Amit Mishra spun his way to 11 wickets in his first three Tests and the Zaheer Khan-Ishant Sharma new-ball pairing proved itself as the most hostile in world cricket.
The whole series, the Baggy Greens' first defeat by more than one Test since 1988-89, had the feeling of a changing of the guard. Elsewhere, New Zealand and England also lost captains - Stephen Fleming to retirement and Michael Vaughan to a crippling lack of form. Both men enjoyed lengthy stints at the helm and the cricketing fraternity was a better place for the tactical nous and steely determination they brought to the crease.
Also in 2008, unsuspecting batsmen were introduced to a new mystery delivery in Mendis' flicked 'Carrom ball' - the most talked about part of an armoury that could yet provide some relief to Sri Lanka when the long-dreaded day of Muttiah Muralitharan's retirement finally comes. Add to that two staggering run chases at the end of the year - South Africa hunting down 414-4 to defeat Australia and Tendulkar guiding India to a winning total of 387 for four against England - and there was plenty of quality cricket.
While security concerns threaten cricket's long-established venues, new ones rise up in their place. While Australia begin to feel more keenly than ever the passing of their golden generation, so the likes of India gain strength from new sources. In cricket, as in life, everything changes, but everything also stays the same. sports@thenational.ae