Lesson from Manchester? Ben Stokes & co believe that the world should play the game as per the moral code they have in their heads

Economic Times

4 days ago

Washington Sundar was on 80 and Ravindra Jadeja on 89 when Ben Stokes had had enough. He wanted to shake hands with the batsmen, the mandatory overs in the final hour of the final day of the fourth Test had begun. India batted on, and when both batsmen had reached three figures, called it quits at 425 for 4. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
ADVERTISEMENT Except Stokes lost his rag on the field. Do you want a Test hundred against Harry Brook's bowling? England asked the batsmen at the crease, forgetting momentarily that they had been kept on the field for 143 overs, and having reduced India to 0 for 2, could only pick up two more wickets. Stokes was welcome to bowl whoever he wanted, but, with one Test to play, and there being no chance of forcing a result, he used his non-bowlers.
On the field, frustrated that they could not do more after being in such a strong position, Stokes' momentary loss of calm might be forgiven. Aching limbs and tired bodies can play tricks on the calmest of minds.
But, to suggest that India were putting personal milestones ahead of the game was churlish in the extreme. The fact is that England threw everything they could at India's batsmen, who dug deep and battled hard for a draw. Having done all the hard work, exactly why should either Washington or Jadeja walk off? Stokes was within his rights to offer, Shubman Gill equally so, to politely decline.What followed was problematic, to put it mildly. To state the obvious, Test hundreds don't come easy. Ask Washington, who has been left stranded on 85 and 96. India will eventually realise that Washington is a top-order batsman who also bowls very well, and when he's deployed higher up the order, there will no doubt be many more hundreds to follow. But, here he was on the verge of his maiden Test ton, and Stokes's England thought he was a bad sport for not running for cover at the earliest?
ADVERTISEMENT Jadeja already had four Test hundreds to his name before this game, but he's a slightly different beast. Jadeja has played so many invaluable hands for India, many of them not close to three figures, but worth more than that in the context of the game. And, about three years ago, Jadeja was batting on 175 against Sri Lanka at Mohali when he told Rohit Sharma, the captain, to declare the Indian innings in order to give themselves enough time to bowl out the opposition. Which, of course, Jadeja planned to play a big part in. It's not as though Jadeja is a milestone chaser.But, even if he were, it should be no concern of the opposition captain. If the pursuit of personal milestones was affecting the team, that's a problem for Gill to deal with. If anything, a tough-but-fair competitor such as Stokes should welcome the opposition doing this.
ADVERTISEMENT But even that is beside the point. The issue simply is that Stokes, and it seems some of his teammates, believe that the world should play the game as per the moral code they have in their heads. Not the rules of the game, and really, it should end there, but cricket has put this thing called spirit on a pedestal like no other sport.
As one legendary cricketer once said, the spirit of cricket is best taken after the day's play, about three fingers deep and with as many cubes of ice.
ADVERTISEMENT The sour taste in the mouth left by England's bitterness will pass soon enough, given the quick turnaround before the final Test. One of cricket's most diabolical decisions, Greg Chappell asking his brother to roll the ball underarm to New Zealand with six needed off the final ball to tie the game, was within the rules as they stood then. But, Chappell, when he had time to think about having won fair and square, freely admitted that the decision was the wrong one and the product of a mind that had endured a poor season, and was addled. It wasn't even heat of the moment. Perhaps Stokes will reach similar clarity at some point.
Because his telling the world how this game ought to be played smacks of entitlement and privilege. For the best part, Stokes plays his cricket hard, gives it his all, and puts the game front and centre. Stokes is popular with fans and his worthy adversaries. Much more of this sort of behaviour and this might change.
Gautam Gambhir, India's coach, defended his team, asking if England would have walked off with an early finish had the shoe been on the other foot. What he should have been asking was why his own batsmen came off so early in the end. After Stokes's first offer, it took only about 15 minutes for boxes to be ticked. But, having seen England's reaction, India should have made England bowl every last ball they were due, if only to make the point that neither the spirit of the game nor the moral high ground was the sole preserve of the England team.