
Special report: Girls, boys, and the thorny issue of mixed junior teams
'The one thing every one of them had in common was that they had all played football with boys,' says Tessa Payne, the senior club talent pathway manager at the FA. 'For the majority of them, they'd actually been the only girl in a boys' team. Not only were they playing against boys, but with boys, which challenges them to another level because they've got to be able to keep up with the speed of play.'
Advertisement
Their involvement was two-fold. For some, playing in a boys' team was, Payne says, 'the only opportunity they had' in the absence of local girls' sides. Take, for instance, England and Manchester City winger Lauren Hemp, who, aged 15, appeared on ITV regional news when she moved to boys' grassroots football after the closure of Norwich City's centre of excellence (she also played for England and trained with a boys' team at Norwich).
'And secondly,' Payne continues, 'from a talent-development perspective, we recognise there are a number of benefits that come with girls having the opportunity to play with and against boys.'
Her colleague Emma Jenks, the FA's women's pathways manager, lists those benefits: a technical challenge — 'how they play with the ball, the decision-making and the speed of the game' — and, of course, physicality. 'With the younger age groups, that physical challenge is about the movement of players who are able to shift their body and change direction at an increased speed,' she says. 'With older age groups, it's a physical use of the body within the game.'
'Across Europe, playing against boys is the norm,' adds Payne. 'I think we're on a journey for that to be more normalised in this country, but we recognise that it may take time for people to be educated.'
Mixed football in England has always been a thorny topic, and a story that encapsulates shifting politics, stereotypes and issues around access.
Before 2010, girls could only play against or with boys up until the age of 11. Even in 2011, when the FA allowed girls and boys to play together at under-12 and under-13 levels, England had one of the lowest age limits for mixed football in the world. At that time, the cut-off level in Scotland, France and Portugal was under-15; in Germany and Italy, under-17; in Belgium, under-18; in Switzerland and the Netherlands, under-19. Denmark, Spain, Northern Ireland and Poland did not have any upper age limit.
In that climate, the girls who appealed against the situation found themselves stepping into political firestorms.
In the 1970s, 11-year-old Theresa 'Terri' Bennett sued the FA under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 after it banned her from competing in the East Midlands' Newark Youth League for her team, Muskham United. Her case attracted considerable global attention, including from The New York Times and UK children's TV news programme Newsround, and fan mail from around the world indicated significant support.
Advertisement
Bennett won, but the judgment was overturned on appeal. Worse, the FA's ban on women's football would not be lifted until 1991. The judgment in her case read: 'Women have not got the strength or stamina to run, to kick or to tackle and so forth.'
At age 13, Alyshia Walker was captaining a boys' team, Fauldhouse Foxes, just outside Edinburgh. Scotland's rules permitted mixed football up to the age of 15. In 2012, when Walker became the first female player to win the Scottish Youth FA Cup and qualified for the UK Four Nations Finals of the Tesco Cup in Birmingham, the English FA's rules prevented her from playing. She was allowed only to take part in the warm-up and the coin toss.
In 2006, 10-year-old Minnie Crutwell met with UK government members of parliament and FA officials to ask them to consider raising the cut-off beyond the age of 11 and allow her to play with two south London boys' teams past her next birthday. England was the only country that had a blanket ban in place for mixed football at under-12s. Crutwell's request won the support of Britain's then chancellor (a government job viewed as second in importance only to that of prime minister) Gordon Brown and other MPs, who wrote in a report that the rule was 'an artificial barrier to girls' potential development — and a possible deterrent to more females taking up the sport'.
It is unsettling to consider teenage girls in the crossfire of what became a quasi-culture war, with football, and their ability to compete physically, almost a proxy for broader ideas about sex, gender and women and girls' roles in society.
The FA's response to Crutwell's campaign was to commission a team from Brunel University to oversee a one-year research project into the key issues surrounding mixed-gender football. Throughout the 2007-08 season, there would be trials at under-12, under-13 and under-14 level (the study was then extended for a further two seasons).
Advertisement
Headed by Dr Laura Hills, now the division lead for sport, health and exercise sciences at Brunel, it concluded there was 'a considerable overlap between boys and girls in relation to size, motor skill development and ability between the ages of 11 and 13'. The FA also appointed an independent company to conduct a risk assessment and found that no girl participating in any of the mixed-gender teams studied had required any treatment for injuries.
'It was quite controversial — much more than I even imagined,' recalls Hills. 'In the beginning, mixed football was seen as very, very unusual. There was a lot of resistance. I'm from the States, so the link to masculinity surprised me. The idea that football was for boys was still quite pervasive. I think it was partly biological, but partly social ideas about what girls and boys should be spending their time doing.
'But there was no question the girls were OK, and they were playing. After the policy started changing, there was very little resistance. People got used to the idea.'
Hills' work involved watching matches and interviewing girls, boys, parents and coaches.
'At the grassroots level, people were really in favour of it,' she says. 'Most of the girls had played with their teams for quite a few years and then they were told they couldn't play anymore. They didn't really understand why. It was all working, and they were all friends.
'In the surrounding environment, it was really mixed. We talked to different CEOs and league officials, and they were more against the change. One of the opposing views was that it would be detrimental to the girls' game — that all the good girls would go and play on the boys' teams and there wouldn't be a strong girls' league.
'There weren't as many opportunities for girls to play at a high level. In some of the more rural places, there weren't sufficient girls to form teams, so that's why they were doing it. Another was that girls wouldn't be safe; that the physical differences were too great and it was too risky for girls. One that never really played out was about changing rooms. When we were doing our research, players all came in their kit and left in their kit.'
Advertisement
Parents and coaches often dismissed safety concerns, pointing out that they wouldn't 'put people on the teams if they're not at the level'. Often, Hills' interviewees were eager to challenge assumptions around differences between the sexes and look at 'where players' skills, knowledge, ability, attitude, motivation overlap'.
Most preconceptions and misconceptions emphasised differences over shared experiences, Hills reported. If parents and administrators mainly encountered sport on television, where sex segregation is automatic at elite level, mirroring that in the grassroots game would feel intuitive.
'There are assumptions that boys are stronger or more aggressive or more competitive,' says Hills. 'The idea that there's a need to separate men's and women's and girls' and boys' sport is really strong. We separate them in all situations, and there may be some situations where that's not necessary.
'A lot of times, we put gender first before we think about levels of experience, ability, understanding of the game, social skills and social information, or even what the priorities of an event are. Is it just about the competition or is it actually about learning to play together and developing more positive ideas about equality?'.
Amid the trial, Niamh McKevitt would become the first girl in England to play mixed-sex football all the way through to under-18s. In her 2015 book Playing With The Boys, she recounts sexism that almost defies belief in its frequency, from the PE teacher who denied her a place on the school boys' team to the parents who mocked their sons for not being able to match her skill.
'She said when she turned up, people looked at her like a monkey had turned up to play football,' her father Steve tells The Athletic. 'It's not like they're mean to the monkey or don't like the monkey, but they're shocked and surprised that a monkey wants to and can play football. After about five minutes, the novelty that there's a girl playing wears off. It wasn't that we particularly wanted to play boys' football; it was that there were no opportunities to play women's football, really.'
Niamh persisted because she felt the opposition in her girls' league wasn't challenging enough. She sometimes struggled to connect socially with her male team-mates, and encountered coaches in the women's game cynical about her background in mixed football because they thought the boys' game was overly reliant on physicality and the girls' superior technically.
Advertisement
When Niamh herself became involved in the mixed-sex trial, she was the only girl researchers were able to verify as playing at under-15s level and knew the potential impact on future generations. 'It felt weird to think that any extension to the rule… would be down to what the researchers made of my performances,' she wrote.
Two researchers would travel up to seven hours to watch her play and stand at the side of the pitch with clipboards, Steve recalls.
In practical terms, Niamh was left in limbo at the end of each season as she waited to see if the FA would extend the cut-off for mixed football.
Steve was constantly searching for new teams and backup options. His daughter left one club after their new coach favoured his son, who played the same position as her. 'And it's very easy to drop a girl,' Steve says. 'I wouldn't wish it on anybody. I just felt constantly frustrated. Uncertainty really clouded her experience. Your kid just wants to play football and you're having to tell her she has to play against kids who can't kick snow off a rope. Her younger sister didn't have any of those problems.'
When Niamh was playing, there were 110 teams in the local boys' league compared with around 10 in the girls' version. One girls' division has become four in the years since.
There is a broader hope among those who champion mixed football that boys will grow up with more enlightened views of girls' capabilities. The concern then is that the first tranche of girls will become de facto representatives of their whole sex — Niamh notes that 'if (male team-mates) Dan or Sheriyar screwed up… it was because they weren't good enough; if I screwed up, it was because girls aren't good enough to play football' — or that the others in the side will view them as exceptions among a gender that cannot play the game.
Would those misconceptions exist if all leagues were mixed from the outset? Will girls always have to pass a certain threshold to win acceptance?
Advertisement
The role grassroots has to play in shaping wider societal attitudes is a broad debate, but a worthwhile one given the last generation of female footballers drew ire even after they had graduated to professional careers.
The United States Women's National Team's landmark equal pay case met resistance online from men who gleefully unearthed that USWNT players had lost 5-2 to an under-15s boys' team from MLS side FC Dallas in 2017 — a fact that was used to discredit their World Cup and Olympic wins, as well as the validity of women's football as a whole. The same happened to Australia as they reached the semi-finals of the 2023 World Cup, with social media users reposting news stories of their 7-0 defeat by a Newcastle Jets under-16s boys' side seven years earlier.
What these users do not post is the pages of former England captain Steph Houghton's 2024 autobiography Leading From The Back where she recalls how the early Manchester City Women teams would train with the club's under-18s boys' side that included future Footballer of the Year Phil Foden. 'It made no difference that we were women; there was a real respect there,' Houghton wrote. 'You weren't looked down upon because you were female. When it got to training, there were no prisoners. It was full contact, and it was competitive, and that made me improve so much.'
Houghton observed there was little difference in terms of technical ability but the boys were far quicker, so the women had to move the ball faster and move into position earlier.
Earlier this year, 17-year-old midfielder Vera Jones signed her first professional contract with Chelsea, having spent most of her career playing with and against boys in Barry Town's academy in south Wales, a rare instance of a player entering the top level of the women's game directly from a boys' youth setup. Her junior career involved county and girls' teams before joining Barry as an under-13, after which she represented both Wales and England at women's youth level.
Her time at Barry coincided with the age when, in her former under-15s coach Rhys Evans' view, boys begin to mature physically. Some shoot up in height while others become more powerful and can cover ground more quickly. Jones was still among the smallest when playing with other girls for England.
'If we all had a magic machine, you'd just put everyone at the same height,' Evans says. 'But this is where you've got to find a way of dealing with the game in another way. It would have been easy, when you look at size and everything like that, to drop her before under-16s and say, 'Go and play in the women's game — play what you're going to play in the future'. But she stood by it and the academy manager was sticking by her to carry on that route.
Advertisement
'I tried to look at Vera's game and how we could help. The main thing was dealing with the physicality. There were times when she was trying to throw herself about and it helped her, but her biggest thing was her technical ability and how quickly she moved the ball. We said, 'When you're at No 10, showing in the pockets, try not to get into the battle. If you want to, get stuck in, guard the ball, win the free kick. But try to make everything in certain areas of the pitch about one, two touch, moving that ball on quickly'.
'It always revolves around space and time. Can you find space early? Are you looking to get space away from players to allow yourself to get a touch, and then release that ball quickly, so you're not getting in a battle?'.
Amid her research for the FA, Hills pointed out that if a governing body mandatorily splits the sexes, they must make sure the girls' game is well-resourced with sufficient infrastructure. Previously, English football was guilty of driving girls away from boys' leagues without providing an equal alternative in the area. Every issue — from the smaller pool of players to the lack of local girls' teams — is a symptom of chronic underinvestment in girls' and women's football over decades.
Even now, this causes issues for the more talented girls.
Manchester United academy player Evie Edmondson, who is 10, began her football career in boys' grassroots and academy teams (she was part of the Academy One boys' side that won the Junior Premier League last year against clubs linked to professional sides) but tried girls' football when sports restarted after the Covid-19 pandemic. Edmondson's strengths lie in her vision and passing range, but she struggled to play alongside girls who did not read the game as she did.
'Where we live is probably a factor,' her father Leigh says. 'There is only really one girls' team.'
One academy wanted to start a girls' team and moved Evie into their ranks to raise the standard. The girls' development centres at local professional clubs were also too easy for her. 'It was like, 'Dad, they don't even know how to pass the ball',' Leigh says. 'You can't just take a kid somewhere to play football if they're not enjoying it.'
Advertisement
The girls' teams, Leigh says, were more physical. 'I think it's because boys, up until a certain age, are a little timid, whereas the girls didn't care about it. She found that part a little bit more challenging. At Bradford City and Manchester United, I would say the girls are a little bit tougher.'
Evie was scouted for United by a boys' academy scout who happened to see her at boys' tournaments; United is 'the first time Evie has actually really quite enjoyed' girls' football, Leigh says, 'because she doesn't stand out anymore. She's definitely up there, but there are some very, very good players.'
At Evie's United enrollment, the Edmondsons learned that her team will play in a boys' league in their age group. Then at around 14, they will play boys' sides one year younger. 'They want them playing against the best physical team because the one word that came out of their induction was 'strength',' says Leigh.
Payne was the technical director for Arsenal's Regional Talent Club, overseeing the pathway for junior female players to their first team, when the FA first allowed clubs to enter girls' teams into boys' leagues in 2016 — firstly at under-10 and under-12, and later at under-14s and under-16. Arsenal took advantage, finding local opposition that matched their players' abilities. That tailored, strategic approach is far removed from the prescriptivism of the outright ban.
'It took a little bit of work to support clubs and players and parents to understand the benefits of it, but over the past 10 years, we've seen a significant shift in people recognising how beneficial that could be,' says Payne. Playing in local mixed leagues also meant girls' academy players didn't have to travel as far. Arsenal further encouraged their most able girls to train with some of their boys' academy sides.
'We want to grow the girls' game but we also want to, and have a responsibility to, develop the next generation of Lionesses that are ready to compete on the world stage, that are ready to be European champions again,' adds Jenks. 'We don't look at this in isolation and think mixed football is the only part of the game we need to grow and develop. We look at it all and say, 'How are we best going to stretch these players so that they can be the future Lionesses?'.'
Key to that has been improving opportunities for girls to be exposed to football and enter elite environments earlier, through work with schools and grassroots clubs.
Advertisement
'We recognise that our system previously wasn't wholly accessible to girls to be able to enter at those earlier phases,' adds Jenks. 'Probably in the past, girls were coming into the game at a later stage than boys. We've tripled the number of girls now in a talent system from what we had just two years ago. The consequence is that girls are exposed to better coaching, training and playing environments at a much earlier age.'
In 2024, Queens Park Ladies Under-12s finished unbeaten as the only girls' team in the Bournemouth Youth Football League.
When their achievement attracted media attention, manager Toby Green was taken aback to read some of the headlines. 'The papers were writing stuff like, 'Take that, boys! We smashed you and all the boys were crying!' None of that ever happened. What happened was the boys were always respectful. We had no issues whatsoever. The boys have been brilliant, but the papers don't want to write that.'
The FA allows girls' teams to play in age groups below their own should they enter mixed or boys' leagues. The key, Green says, is granting coaches the freedom to find appropriate opponents.
'If you've got really, really good girls that have been playing since they were five and the boys' puberty hasn't kicked in yet, boys and girls should pretty much, on a football pitch, be treated as equals,' he says. 'But if you're new to football and you're a bit timid, you probably don't want to go into boys' league, because at the first slide-tackle you're just going to go, 'I don't fancy this'.
'Other teams this year are in the boys' league. One has really struggled because they didn't have these foundations, as five-, six- and seven-year-olds, of playing against boys. But if you've been playing against boys since you were five, it's easy and it's normal.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jubilant scenes as Lionesses keep Euros dream alive with second-half equaliser
Jubilant scenes erupted in fan zones across the country as England kept their Euros dream alive with a second-half equaliser in the final. Arsenal striker Alessia Russo rose highest to divert Chloe Kelly's cross past Cata Coll in the Spanish goal in the 57th minute – sending Lionesses supporters into raptures. England fans had watched on nervously as they once again found themselves behind in a crucial Euros tie. Fans draped in England flags joined the Prince of Wales and his daughter Princess Charlotte in holding their heads in their hands as Mariona Caldentey put Spain 1-0 up in the final on Sunday. A nervous atmosphere transformed into a jubilant one at Boxpark Croydon as Russo's header found the net, with England flags being waved and supporters hugging each other during the celebrations. At the final whistle, fans of the Lionesses appeared confident as they started dancing and cheering as the match went into extra time. William and Charlotte were pictured in Switzerland for the Euros final as the royal family led the nation in wishing good luck to England's Lionesses. Shortly before kick-off, an image of the pair was posted on the Prince and Princess of Wales's X account with the caption 'let's go, Lionesses'. As Caldentey's header found the net in the 25th minute, William and Charlotte were pictured with their heads in their hands and crowds in fan zones across England fell silent as they watched proceedings. Before kick-off, supporters waved England flags and loudly sang the national anthem at Boxpark Croydon and star striker Michelle Agyemang's former team, Brandon Groves Community Club in Essex. Agyemang, 19, who had one England cap before the tournament, scored crucial equalisers in the Lionesses' quarter-final and semi-final comebacks. Ahead of the game, 11-year-old Violet Ingram, a left winger for Brandon Grove Emeralds, said: 'Seeing her (Agyemang) and the team just makes me feel like I can do anything I want to do.' Lionesses fans stood on their feet while some children said 'come on England' after Russo's header put England on level terms. The Prince of Wales, who is patron of the Football Association (FA), applauded the national anthem as he stood next to Charlotte in the stadium. In a show of support ahead of the final, the Band of the Grenadier Guards performed Three Lions on the Buckingham Palace forecourt, while the royal family's official X account posted: 'Wishing the very best of luck to the @Lionesses in the Women's Euro Final this evening.' Meanwhile, BBC Sport and ITV have secured the broadcasting rights for the Women's World Cup 2027, meaning the tournament will remain free-to-air for UK viewers. England's path to the final has been marked by late drama. They sealed their spot with a last-gasp extra-time win over Italy, following a penalty shootout victory against Sweden in the quarter-finals after nearly crashing out in extra time. The Lionesses will be looking for redemption against Spain, who edged them 1-0 in the 2023 Women's World Cup final. England boss Sarina Wiegman said the team is 'going to do everything we can to win it' and she would prefer to avoid a 'nerve-wracking' match.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Injured Rishabh Pant will miss India's fifth test vs. England
MANCHESTER, England (AP) — India's Rishabh Pant has been ruled out of the final test against England with a foot fracture. India coach Gautam Gambhir confirmed Pant's injury for the first time after the visitors salvaged a draw in the fourth test at Old Trafford on Sunday. Pant retired hurt on day one when taken off the field on a cart with his foot badly swollen but he returned, limping, on day 2 to reach a half century. 'It's been declared that he's out of the series, and one thing I want to say is that the character and the foundation of this team will be built on something Rishabh did for the team and for the country as well,' Gambhir said. "Any amount of praise is not enough for him, especially batting with a broken foot. 'I think the generations to come forward will talk about it and the generations coming forward should talk about it.' Pant was injured when attempting a reverse sweep off Chris Woakes and the ball deflected onto his right ankle and foot. India did not confirm at the time the extent of the injury, but he was replaced as wicket-keeper by Dhruv Jurel for the remainder of the match. He wasn't required to bat in India's second innings, with the visitors earning a draw in Manchester after Shubman Gill, Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar (101 not out) all reached centuries on the final day. England leads the series 2-1 going into the final test at the Oval next week. ___ James Robson is at


New York Times
20 minutes ago
- New York Times
England, India and a compelling Test series that is proving impossible to predict
It did not seem possible for India to pull off one of the greatest of all escapes and draw the fourth Test. Not after losing two wickets in the first over of their second innings when faced with a deficit of 311 once England had made 669. And not when KL Rahul and Shubman Gill had been dismissed on the last morning after putting on a defiant 188. Advertisement Nothing seemed more certain than an England win to clinch the series with one to play after they had scored more than 600 for only the second time in a home Test in 20 years. But a tremendous display of resilience, determination and character from Washington Sundar and Ravindra Jadeja gave India a defiant draw that keeps the series alive, with England 2-1 ahead going into the final Test at the Oval on Thursday. This will feel like a victory to India. They came so close to winning the third Test at Lord's in another five-day epic, but then seemed to create problems for themselves with their team. The decision to fast-track seam bowler Anshul Kamboj into the side for his Test debut once they had been beset by injuries to original squad members Akash Deep, Arshdeep Singh and Nitish Kumar Reddy was bizarre. Under-pressure coach Gautam Gambhir could have turned to a seam bowler who had played in this series, in Prasidh Krishna, and another awaiting his chance in Harshit Rana. Instead, India not only threw Kamboj straight into the side but gave him the new ball ahead of Mohammed Siraj and then saw him struggle to reach 80 miles per hour. Kamboj may have impressed for India A against England Lions this season, when he took five wickets in two matches, but he had returned to India after those games and there seemed no compelling reason why he should be brought back. Then there was the decision of Gill to hold back off-spinner Washington, who had taken four wickets for just 20 at Lord's, until the 69th over of an England reply to their 358, which eventually saw them run up that huge first innings total. But the biggest of all questions that faced India was their reluctance to play the forgotten man of their tour party, in unorthodox left-arm spinner Kuldeep Yadav. England have a traditional weakness against wrist-spin — and left-arm wrist spin is the rarest type of bowling — and have struggled against Kuldeep in the past. He lengthens their tail, but he would surely have posed a bigger threat to Kamboj and the underused Shardul Thakur. Now, in a series of twists and turns, it is India who will head to London with a spring in their tired step and England facing questions about an attack out on their feet after four long Tests and with captain Ben Stokes facing another injury worry. No one did more to pull off one of the most unlikely draws in Indian cricket history than novice captain Gill. He arrived at the crease just before lunch on the fourth day with Chris Woakes on a hat-trick after dismissing Yashasvi Jaiswal and Sai Sudharsan, the second wicket having fallen when Gill was in the washroom. He could have been excused for imploding and giving up on the series. Not a bit of it. Advertisement Gill was close to falling lbw to Jofra Archer without scoring when TV umpire Kumar Dharmasena decided there was insufficient evidence to overturn Ahsan Raza's not out decision when it was unclear whether the ball had hit his bat or toes first. Then he could have been dismissed on 46 when Liam Dawson dropped a catch diving in the gully that he really should have taken off Brydon Carse. Gill was reprieved on the last morning on 81 when Stokes, bowling despite suffering from a shoulder injury suffered in the warm-up, saw him drive uppishly towards cover, where Ollie Pope could not hold on above his head. That should not take anything away from an India captain who went on to his fourth century of this series before eventually falling to Archer with his tally at a remarkable 722 in four matches. He is 252 behind Sir Don Bradman's record of 974 runs in a series against England in 1934, with one Test remaining. When Gill and the equally solid Rahul — who has made 602 runs in this series — went, India sent in the man who could have missed out had Kuldeep been selected, their second spinner Washington ahead of the injured Rishabh Pant and Jadeja. Washington had been on the receiving end of an English verbal attack at Lord's when he suggested on the fourth evening India would 'definitely win' the third Test. 'Jofra's coming on in a minute, Washy,' shouted Harry Brook after Gill had shielded the left-armer from facing Dawson. But Washington showed character in making his maiden Test century and adding 203 with Jadeja, who was, perhaps decisively, dropped when Joe Root juggled a slip catch off the first ball the left-hander faced from Archer. Only when there were a few of the angry words that featured at Lord's was the partnership disrupted, Stokes trying to shake hands and call it a day with 15 overs remaining, only for Jadeja and Washington to insist on batting on in search of their centuries. Advertisement It led to a farcical end when Jadeja moved to his hundred with a six off the part-time bowling of Brook, but the hard work had been done and it was understandable significant personal milestones were wanted. Even when Brook said 'f*****g hell Washy, get on with it' and then 'this century is really going to mean something' from Ben Duckett, the India batters were not deterred. Washington's hundred was a landmark in itself, as it was the 11th by an India batter in this series, the most by any visiting side in England. 'Both batted brilliantly and with both being in the 90s, we wanted to carry on,' said Gill. 'A Test hundred is a Test hundred and we felt it was worth carrying on for another three or four overs.' Stokes added: 'The hard work had been done by India. Both those batters played incredibly well and we got to the point where only one result was possible. There was no chance I was going to risk any of my fast bowlers by bowling them again and Dawson was cramping up. That's why Brook bowled.' Four tough matches on mainly slow pitches more suited to the sub-continent have left both sides exhausted and injury hit, and the relentless schedule will continue in south London. Woakes and Carse have played in all four games for England and will surely need replacing at the Oval, as will Archer, who has now played two demanding Tests in succession, having not played any cricket lasting more than 50 overs a side in more than four years. Then there is Stokes, who has been a colossus in this match but could not bowl on the fourth day and was clearly in pain with his shoulder when he forced his way through another 11 overs on Sunday. England must think long and hard before they risk their captain because his ability to play an all-round role with bat and ball remains integral to their chances of causing an upset in Australia this winter. Advertisement 'It was a workload thing,' said Stokes in playing down any injury concerns. 'I ask players to run through a brick wall, so I will always try to do the same.' Stokes will be disappointed that his spinner, in Dawson, playing his first Test in eight years, went wicketless on a last-day pitch and the captain was seen at tea telling the experienced slow bowler that he should be bowling a different line into the rough. India also have issues. They cannot pick Kamboj again, while Thakur has largely been a passenger and Siraj is another to have played in all four games. Then there is Bumrah. India have been adamant that the best bowler in the world would only play three Tests in this series to protect his troublesome back, and he twisted his ankle walking down the dressing room stairs here. Bumrah has played in three Tests now — he missed the only game India have won — but surely Gill will want him to play with the series on the line? Deep is also expected to be fit. This was only the second draw in the 40-Test reign of Stokes and coach Brendon McCullum, the first here at Old Trafford when two days of rain stopped England beating Australia two years ago. The famously inclement Manchester weather had nothing to do with this one. This was down to five sessions and 11 hours of Indian defiance, patience, determination and technical excellence. And that should be celebrated as much as any individual milestone and any cricketing pyrotechnics. Click here to read more cricket stories on The Athletic, and follow Global Sports on The Athletic app via the Discover tab.