Ben Stokes and India's handshake drama the latest example suggesting 'spirit of cricket' is a myth

Australia Broadcast Center

5 days ago

They are the three words that seem to resurface every couple of years like clockwork: spirit of cricket.
Everyone's favourite debate is back again this week after a tense ending to the fourth Test between England and India, a series that has become increasingly more spiteful with each passing day of play.
England, led by its skipper Ben Stokes, was peeved when India's Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar denied their handshakes to prematurely end a Test match that was headed towards an obvious draw with an hour left to play on the final day.
Roughly 15 minutes after turning down Stokes's handshakes, Jadeja and Sundar recorded their centuries, which were well-deserved given they batted for the majority of day five to keep the series alive heading into this week's finale at The Oval.
Stokes was initially accused of refusing the shake Sundar's hand at the completion of the Test, and was widely panned for doing so, especially in Australia, before a different camera angle emerged showing he had indeed congratulated the Indian all-rounder.
It was all very dramatic, and a classic cricket drama. So here we are again, debating about the spirit of cricket, who champions it and more importantly, who doesn't.
Among all the sports people tune into around the world, there is perhaps none where the spirit of the game and what exactly that entails is debated more fervently than it is in cricket.
It makes sense, given the amount of grey area that exists in cricket and all the different rules it has, both written and unwritten.
England and India's handshake-gate was the latest example of many that suggest spirit of cricket isn't a thing that actually exists, but is rather a fantasy that those who love the sport seem to constantly dream up.
The thing that seems to get missed in any spirit-of-cricket discussion is the intensity professional sport is played at.
These are the world's best athletes competing for the biggest prizes. If they are presented with a chance to win or to improve their own situations at the cost of their opposition, they are going to do that every single time. Cricketers are no different.
In the situation involving England and India, it is pretty easy to understand why each side behaved in the way it did.
Jadeja and Sundar, having grafted hard for the majority of day five, were well within their rights to deny England's request to end the game when they were within touching distance of their centuries.
Test centuries are incredibly hard to come by, particularly when you're an all-rounder like Jadeja or Sundar.
Prior to the fourth Test, Sundar had never made one in his career. Jadeja, considered one of the best all-rounders in the history of Test cricket, had just four, and only one of those had come outside of India.
Stokes making it sound like they'd simply reached their centuries because they faced a couple of overs from Harry Brook in the 90s was unfair.
If any cricketer, from England or elsewhere, tells you individual accomplishments do not matter to them, they are lying. There is a reason why getting a century or a five-wicket haul at Lord's is one of the highlights of any Test player's career — the ground's iconic honour board. Individual accomplishments are what get you on that honour board, not winning spirit-of-cricket debates.
While Stokes and his charges reacting the way they did to Jadeja and Sundar batting on certainly wasn't ideal, their collective frustration was also understandable.
England's bowlers, having had India on the ropes at 2-0 late on day four, would have backed themselves to close out the Test and the series nine times out of 10.
However, after 143 long overs in the field, including 80 on the final day that yielded just two wickets, they were tired and easily irritable.
Stokes, who bowled just 11 overs in the second innings while nursing a sore shoulder that has since ruled him out of the series finale, understandably wanted to get his bowlers off the park with minimal damage, given the short turnaround between the two Tests.
Like Stokes, Jofra Archer, who bowled 23 overs in India's second innings, will not play at The Oval as England carefully nurses him towards this summer's Ashes in Australia.
The narratives following the end of the fourth Test have grown the legs they have because of the essential ingredients to make a story worthwhile — a hero in the two Indian batters and a villain in Stokes and England.
The hand-wringing from pundits and fans of cricket's Big Three — England, India and Australia — in the wake of this incident has been hilarious to watch. These three cricketing nations consistently get on each other's nerves because of one reason — they are exactly the same as each other.
Put India and Australia in England's shoes, and they'd both have been equally petulant. Put Stokes in Jadeja's shoes, and he is absolutely staying on the field in search of a Test century.
These three nations aren't the only ones who push the boundaries of the spirit of cricket either.
New Zealand is perennially seen as cricket's "good guys", but they too aren't immune to pushing the envelope on occasion to win a match.
Brendon McCullum, who is ironically now the coach of England and the brains behind "BazBall", famously ran out Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan during a Test match in 2006 when Muralitharan completed a single and then prematurely left his crease to congratulate teammate Kumar Sangakkara on his century.
McCullum even apologised for the incident 10 years later when delivering the Cowdrey Lecture.
"If I could turn back time, I would," he said, with Sangakkara among those in attendance.
"We were within the laws of the game, but not the spirit, and there is a very, very important difference, which is glaringly obvious to me years later."
Almost 10 years on from that speech, it would be interesting to see whether McCullum still holds those same views about adhering to the mythical "spirit of cricket".
The Sri Lankans have also found themselves engaging in acts of pettiness on the field.
Sri Lanka famously denied India's Virender Sehwag a century in an ODI match, in an incident that resulted in spinner Suraj Randiv being suspended.
With Sehwag unbeaten on 99 and India requiring one run to win the match, Randiv bowled a huge deliberate no-ball that denied Sehwag his century.
Like McCullum, Randiv too apologised, as did Sangakkara, with the Sri Lankans admitting the heat of the moment had gotten the better of them.
If you combed over the history of each international cricket team, you'd be able to find more incidents like these across the board. No-one is entirely blameless, and no-one is entirely innocent either.
This is not to say there isn't room for general sportsmanship in sport — there absolutely is. It is still important to win and lose with grace.
However, there is also room for common sense to be applied, for an understanding that professional athletes are trained all their lives to be ruthless competitors. With that ruthless streak is going to come moments of discomfort. Not all of these moments need to be a referendum on the "spirit" of whatever the sport is.
It is not ideal, but incidents like what occurred at the end of the fourth Test will happen once again. This is what happens in professional sport when there are big prizes and legacies on the line.
Perhaps spirit of cricket isn't a thing that actually exists.
It is time for those around the sport to accept that and to understand that cricket will be OK if that is the case.