Australia's dreams turn to ashes - but cricket lives on - Telegraph.co.uk

But while cricket is anathema to many, it can also equip nations and fans rather well for the challenges of the modern age in terms of dealing with ambiguity and complexity, enriching concepts of nationhood and providing much needed respite from the hubbub of the everyday.

If there is one thing certain about contemporary life and that is that it is less certain than life in any other age before. We once knew our enemy and had our nuclear weapons trained on them as a visible sign of our certainty. We also had decisive government and clear leadership. The enemy is now nomadic; our nuclear weapons are all but useless against the shifting targets of terrorism; and as Britain and Australia both appreciated in 2010, even elections can throw up ambiguous results, something our cricketing colleagues in India are well used to. Life is not as simple as a game of football, it is more complex, less certain and more ambiguous, and cricket is at home with all those concepts.

The new world order has also thrown a spotlight on nationhood and immigration. Both Britain and Australia now have a nationality test. The forerunner to this in Britain was "Tebbit's Cricket test": in 1990 the former Cabinet Minister declared that "a large proportion of Britain's Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?"

But life is now rather more nuanced than that. I recently spotted a Facebook page with the title "We support Pakistan cricket not the nation". The supporter's page claims support for Pakistan cricket because of its high quality, rather than Pakistan the country or the regime. Mass migration and multiculturalism in Britain and Australia make nationhood all the more complex and cricket to some extent is in tune with this new disorder.

Even the make-up of England's national side demonstrates the diversity of nations with its heavy reliance on South African-born players and its former captain the British-born Nasser Hussein.

If nothing else the modern age is defined by its frenetic pace. Cricket is of course the perfect antidote to that. Memorably, former British Prime Minister John Major went off to the Oval on the day the Conservatives suffered their worst election defeat of all time. His actions seemed to signify a certain dignity, a British stiff upper lip, a sense that there was more to life than winning elections. But more than that, it creates for many people real time out from the stresses of the every day.

John Major once said of cricket: "At one level it is a game and no more; at another it helped cement an Empire and bind a Commonwealth." It seems to me that cricket has also equipped people well for life's increasing complexity, ambiguity, multiculturalism and thorough exhaustion. Having been to the SCG myself last Monday I can vouch for its simple appeal as well; a day out with my son and my Dad, a cool beer (even though a warm one would have been preferred, it was that chilly) and the odd moment of sporting inspiration to make the day worthwhile.

And as for the Aussies – well they are just going to have to get used to not winning all the time – something they will find very difficult indeed. The Ashes came to life out of the impending death of cricket in England; the same is being said of Australia with similarly exaggerated overtones.

Our nations are bound together by a shared past, further cemented by good humor and banter in the present, alongside the continued and often painful hope for victory in the future. Our shared delight for the game has created a temperament that may serve us well as nations into a world that needs the temperament of cricket even more than the game itself.