Cricket alone among sports invites celebration of friend and foe. There is partisanship, of course, and, after years of disappointment, England supporters are enjoying the national team's extended period of success.
Yet the spectators who had filled Lord's to its capacity on Friday left St John's Wood at the end of play not so much pleased with England's fightback on the second day of the first Test against the West Indies as seriously disappointed.
Because of an appalling umpiring decision, they had been robbed of the spectacle they had paid to witness: Brian Lara, the world's outstanding batsman, performing at full throttle on what is probably his last visit to the game's spiritual home. It is safe to say only England's bowlers were glad to see the back of the man who had taken a record 400 runs off them in the fourth Test in Antigua during the winter series in the Caribbean.
Lara, whose temperamental days were thought to be long gone, did not try to hide his own disappointment. When the Australian umpire Daryl Harper raised his finger in response to an appeal for caught behind by wicketkeeper Geraint Jones off the bowling of the spinner Ashley Giles, the West Indian captain stood motionless, head hanging and a his face veiled by anguish.
He left the crease slowly, walking back past the ranks of the embarrassed members in the Pavilion. Then, in a further act of defiance, Lara sat outside the players' dressing room with his pads on, in full view of the TV cameras that had just vindicated him. He resembled a wounded soldier refusing to give up his armour.
He had reason to be angry. The ball from Giles came nowhere near his bat, as numerous TV replays showed. From various angles, it was confirmed that Harper gave a decision based on something he could not possibly have seen.
What followed has become a summer ritual. Over after over, the Channel 4 commentators debated the pros and cons of the new technology. And the consensus was that, sooner or later, cricket will have to become the slave of television.
What is ludicrous about denying umpires total access to replays as an aid to their decision-making is that it is there for perusal by everyone else. Instantly. Within seconds of his mistake, 29,000 people at Lord's and millions watching at home knew Lara had been hard done by.
With admirable prescience, the former West Indies captain Clive Lloyd earlier in the week called for the game's administrators to make full use of replays. 'There's a lot at stake in cricket these days and what matters is that we get it right,' Lloyd said. 'It's time to use technology to the full.'
Lloyd is right. As was Duncan Fletcher, the England team coach, three years ago when he suggested teams should be allowed three referrals a day to the third umpire, an appointed official who is able to use television replays to advise on decisions. This would stop frivolous appeals, as teams would not waste them on umpires' decisions they were not convinced were wrong.
Fears that this would both slow down the game and undermine the credibility of the umpires reflect no more than a fear of change.
Umpires already use the third umpire to adjudicate on run-outs, but are reluctant to give up their discretion on lbw decisions, probably the toughest calls they have to make. They argue that the Hawkeye technology (that so clearly shows the projected path of a ball beyond contact with the pads) is not infallible.
Perhaps. But, as viewers are constantly made aware, neither are umpires. It seems churlish not to be armed with hi-tech weapons if they are available. Umpires should be left with the final say - but after a quick call upstairs to the third umpire. Had Harper been able to do so on Friday, Lord's most likely would have been treated to another great innings by Lara. And that, surely, is what we all came for.