In the early stages of the fiercely competitive cricket universe, especially in high-pressure matches like India vs England, players tend to work under an informal, vague code of morality.
While, on the one hand, excessive sledging, unnecessary appeals, and waiting tactfully are accepted, legal actions like running a batter out while backing up are viewed as violating the “spirit” of the game. The inconsistency unveils the selective morality that characterises top-class cricket.
The Incident: England’s Draw Proposal and India’s Rejection
In the last hour of the Manchester Test between India vs England, England proposed a draw under the belief that there was no outcome in sight. But Indian batters Washington Sundar and Ravindra Jadeja, both on the cusp of personal milestones, decided to carry on.
Their captain, Shubman Gill, endorsed their decision, well within the purview of the Laws of Cricket. England’s evident annoyance at this call set off debate, not over the rules, but over morality.
Ben Stokes’ Reaction: A Case of Virtue Signalling?
Ben Stokes, England’s talisman and Test skipper, was critical of India playing on. He later implied that the “extra ten runs” made no difference to what Sundar and Jadeja had already attained. This response, even in the cooler light of day after the match, seemed more about presenting a moral high ground than strategy.
Read More
“The knock that those two played was very, very good,” Stokes said after the match.
“The situation that India found themselves in there, with us opening the game slightly, that partnership was massive. You hold your hands up, they played incredibly, incredibly well. And I don’t think there would’ve been too much more satisfaction from walking off a hundred not out, getting your team out of a tricky situation, than walking off at 80, 90 not out. That’s what you’ve done for your team. You know, the 10 more runs or whatever it was ain’t gonna change the fact that you’ve managed to get your team out of a very, very, very tricky situation and almost saved your team from a series defeat before the last game.”
While Stokes undoubtedly ranks as one of the all-time great ambassadors of modern cricket, attested by his many Player-of-the-Match awards and sportsmanship at such venues as Lord’s, his approach in this case appeared to be more about dictating his brand of cricket rather than sportsmanship.
Milestones Do Matter Even to England
It isn’t very ethical to say personal landmarks don’t count. The same England dressing room that revelled in Joe Root’s hundreds looked visibly uncomfortable when he walked into stumps still 99 not out. Furthermore, past England declarations like Root’s hundred against New Zealand at Wellington or Ollie Pope’s double ton against Ireland came only after personal landmarks were safely achieved.
Cricket is a Game of Rules, Not Righteousness
The India vs England Test provided a model lesson on how cricket must be ruled by laws, not moral policing. India choosing to play on did not undermine the game or jeopardise the outcome. If anything, it allowed two unsung heroes to write personal brilliance after a long day of grit and determination.
No law or moral duty mandates ending a Test early simply because one side believes the result is obvious. Had India lost wickets in pursuit of the milestones and jeopardised the draw, that would have been a risk they chose to take. But that risk never materialised.
Respect the Rules, Not Just Your Code
Cricket doesn’t require a one-moral-code-of-conduct approach it requires consistency in enforcing its laws. As much as Ben Stokes is a player to be admired, his overreaction during the India-England Test crossed into defensive moral grandstanding. Even great cricketers can err, and in this instance, attempting to impose an individual ethical code upon a competitor only muddied the actual spirit of the game.
ALSO READ: Vitality Blast Women Final: Surrey Wins Maiden Title Led By Grace Harris
