Ben Stokes loses plot, allows frustration to get better of him; bid to deny Jadeja, Sundar Test centuries in poor taste

Ben Stokes lashed out after Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar denied handshake, choosing to chase Test tons and save India from near-certain defeat.

To say that Ben Stokes has been the difference between England and India over the first four Tests will be an understatement. England’s talismanic skipper, him of the marathon spells despite extreme physical discomfort, is the leading wicket-taker, with 18 scalps. He ended a two-year wait for his 14th century with 141 at Old Trafford in the fourth Test, an innings split by cramps in his left leg which forced him to retire hurt when 66. He has two successive Player-of-the-Match awards, and is the primary reason why his side is 2-1 up with one to play.

India's Washington Sundar and England's captain Ben Stokes greet each other at the end of the fourth Test match between India and England (PTI)

There is much to admire about Stokes the cricketer – tireless right-arm quick who makes things happen, inventive left-hand bat whose slow-burn starts invariably translate into something humongous.

The same Stokes sold himself short at the end of a disheartening, frustrating final day in Manchester, allowing his petulance to boil over after being stymied by a stirring rearguard action from Washington Sundar, making the most of his elevation to No. 5 in Rishabh Pant’s absence, and Ravindra Jadeja.

Jadeja, Sundar dig in as England’s frustration turns into bitterness

The two left-handers came together four minutes before lunch at 222 for four, India needing a further 89 to avoid an innings defeat. England believed they were one wicket away from smashing the door open, but once Joe Root shelled Jadeja off his first ball, India’s Nos. 5 and 6 battened down the hatches. England first battered away in conviction. Gradually, that trickled down to optimism, then hope, eventually a wing and a prayer.

As India overturned the 311-run first-innings deficit and gradually built a handy lead, the inevitable outcome was a draw that was akin to a victory for the visitors and shatteringly close to a defeat for the home side. At the start of the final hour and the 15 mandatory overs – at which time the game could be called off by mutual consent – India were 386 for four, ahead by 75.

Mutual consent. Remember that operative term.

When the last hour dawned, Stokes walked up to Jadeja, extending his hand to offer the draw which the batter, well within his rights, refused. By then, he had battled his way through to 89; at the other end, his young partner had reached 80. Test hundreds don’t come every day, and there is no better way to celebrate steering one’s team to safety than with individual milestones. The last of Jadeja’s four centuries came in February last year, against the same opponents in Rajkot, while Washington’s highest Test score was 96 not out, also against England in Ahmedabad in March 2021. Logical course of action? Bat on, get to the coveted three-figure mark, then shake hands and agree on the draw.

But England see things differently. They view it through a prism of entitlement. They have exclusive grip over the spirit of the game, it would seem. They take great offence when they are accused of not playing in the right spirit, like Shubman Gill did while referencing Zak Crawley wasting inordinate time late on the third evening of the Lord’s Test, but they are quick to scale moral high ground when it is convenient. And therefore, Stokes didn’t take kindly to Jadeja ignoring the outstretched hand. Perhaps, Stokes was under the mistaken impression that he alone could decide when the match could be called off. Perhaps, he had forgotten mutual consent. Or perhaps, he couldn’t digest the fact that for the first time in their history, India’s Nos. 4, 5 and 6 would all make hundreds in the same Test innings.

And so, he told Jadeja: “If you wanted to get a century, you should have batted like it earlier.” Wow! Precious advice.

And then, “Jaddu, you want to get a Test hundred against Harry Brook?” Hmmm. That was your choice, Ben. You could have bowled yourself. Or Chris Woakes or Jofra Archer or Brydon Carse or Liam Dawson. But no, you didn’t want to risk any of your frontline bowlers. Fair play and all that. But apparently, that only applies to England.

At the post-match press conference, Stokes was specifically asked if he would have pulled the plug had a young batter from his team been on the verge of a maiden Test ton, in similar circumstances. There was no direct answer. He spoke of how there can be no greater satisfaction than saving a match for the team and how an extra ten runs for a milestone shouldn’t matter that much. Grandstanding? Posturing? Or just a physically sore and mentally drained captain venting? Take your pick.

This wasn’t good form. There is much to admire about Stokes the cricketer. The grumbling, mean-spirited avatar of Sunday evening? Not so much, no.