Dear Ben Stokes,
After making such a stellar contribution with bat and ball in the fourth Test at Manchester, you served a very important lesson to everyone: One could be his country's captain, one could have performed with the most impressive numbers in batting as well as bowling. But if your conduct reeks of condescension and high-handedness, it lends a very avoidable yet glaring blemish in your otherwise laudable performance during the Test.
I am not here to summarize the scorecard or even the match. Everyone knows the result and everyone would agree that the Indian team earned a very creditable draw, easily coming out of Day 5 as the happier of the two sides.
The critics of Test cricket often argue that it might not be exciting because even after 5 long days of cricket, there might be a draw, which means neither team won. But so what? Isn't life also like that at times? At times, the scales of which of the two sparring opponents has the upper hand are not always unequivocally tilted toward any one specific way.
Denying a win to your opponent, after what looked like a done-and-dusted content to even the most ardent fans, can be extremely satisfying. Even as good as (if not better than) a win. Just look back at what Ashwin, and Hanuma Vihari did at Sydney in 2021. Or what Gautam Gambhir achieved at Napier in 2009. This was just as much of a great Test match where a draw was achieved by batting to save the match against all odds and when everything seemed like a foregone conclusion and lost long, long ago.
Anyway, Mr. Stokes, I digress. The point is that after another such thrilling encounter between two highly competitive sides, when a draw was clearly on the cards, why did you have to resort to an attitude that does not behove an international cricketer, let alone the captain of his team?
Nobody is contesting the fact that why did you offer a draw? Just as that's very much within the rules, so is the fact that the Indian players were similarly entitled to exercise their choice. How can this everyone-needs-to-bow-down-and-comply-with-my-choice attitude be entertained by any fair person?
"So you want to get your hundred batting against Book?"
No, Jadeja didn't say so, Mr. Stokes. Bring on Carse, Dawson, Archers, Woakes, and you yourself - who's stopping you? Since when did the fact that you didn't want to risk your main bowlers getting injured become your opponent (India's) problems?
In fact, it was only nice of the Indians to shake hands as soon as both Washy and Jaddu got to their hundreds. I would have loved to see India playing out the full hour. Why not? Isn't it part of the tactics to tire out the opposition, every possible way? You may find that it does not lead to a result but look at it from the Indian team's POV: Isn't tiring your (any) bowlers and keeping your team on the field for that much (read every possible minute) longer worth it? Is it not a good result from an Indian POV? Sure, it might not suit you but again how is that India's problem? This is why the consent of both captains is sought before a mutually agreed draw an hour being scheduled close of play on Day 5. Only and only if BOTH captains agree.
So gulp your grumpy high-handed attitude down your throat and embrace humility. It is only when you give others the respect that they rightfully deserve that you will also get respect in return. Otherwise, all the wonderful numbers and performances you put would come with a disclaimer: Aah, if only he were a nicer and fairer person too, who could have learnt to accept that the world is not here to just comply with him.
Go well and hope to see a better version of you, going forward.
Cheers!
