'Talk is cheap. If England put their money where their mouth is…': Gavaskar wouldn't have spared Stokes if he were Gill

Sunil Gavaskar did not take kindly to Ben Stokes and England's handshake drama and said things would have been different had he been in Shubman Gill's place.

Sunil Gavaskar is absolutely livid with England's conduct against India during the closing stages of the 4th Test at Manchester. The legendary batter did not take kindly to Ben Stokes' shenanigans aimed at stopping Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar from getting to their respective centuries, when, despite 15 overs left in the day, the England captain attempted to call off the match as no other result, barring a draw, was possible.

Ben Stokes, left, and his tactics did not impress Sunil Gavaskar (AFP)

Stokes offered a handshake, but when Jadeja and Sundar turned it down, England and their captain acted like a bunch of crybabies, taunting Jadeja with needless sledging and finger-pointing. That was still acceptable, but what happened afterwards left a sour taste in the mouth. Stokes handed the ball to Harry Brook, who then bowled lollipop deliveries as gifts, and when Jadeja and Sundar completed centuries, none of the English players applauded.

Stokes and England's act invoked a strong reaction out of Gavaskar, who decided to teach Gavaskar a few lessons on how cricket works.

"Towards the end of the Test, a few grumpy English players were unhappy that the batters at the crease, Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar, declined the offer to end the day’s play when England captain Ben Stokes proposed it at the start of the final hour. Instead, they opted to bat on and complete their hundreds. The England players felt that, since there was no chance of a result, the Indians should have accepted the offer to conclude proceedings. They seemed to forget that two teams are playing out there, and if one decides to continue, the other simply has to accept it," Gavaskar wrote in his column for Sportstar.

"They made sarcastic remarks about the batters, who were in their 80s, getting to their centuries off the bowling of a batter. What they overlooked was the hard work and resilience the batters had shown against frontline bowlers for over four hours to reach the 80s. If they wanted a hundred for their efforts, England should have denied them with proper bowlers rather than whining about them getting there against Harry Brook. A Test century isn’t easy and doesn’t come every match, so the batters were fully entitled to bat on and reach their personal landmarks – which they eventually did. If I were the captain, I’d have told them to keep batting and play out the remaining overs, tiring out the fielders even more – especially after the shenanigans by the English players once their offer was declined."

'Talk is cheap'

Gavaskar then reiterated his point, which he made while speaking on the Sony Sports Network, exposing England's hypocrisy. He picked an example of post-match scenes from the 2nd Test at Birmingham, which India won by a huge margin, to explain all that's wrong with this England Test team.

"At one of the media conferences after the defeat in the second Test in Birmingham, some England players, trying to be funny, asked why India set them a target of over 600. They even went so far as to say that India were scared they’d chase anything above 450. The fact is, when they were on a high from scoring piles of runs on flat tracks and fast outfields in Pakistan, they even boasted ahead of the India tour last year that they could chase down 600. Well, talk is cheap, and when given the chance to put their money where their mouth is by chasing over 600 in Birmingham, they ended up losing by 336 runs. Yes, they didn’t even get to 300 while boasting of chasing over 600," added Gavaskar.