New Delhi:
Cricket is governed by a detailed rulebook, yet many players appear to operate with an additional, often ambiguous, internal moral code. What’s perplexing is how selectively this code is applied. Players are permitted to engage in psychological tactics under the guise of “sledging,” often targeting those perceived as mentally fragile. They may appeal vociferously for dismissals they know are not out, especially when out of reviews. They consistently push the boundaries of the laws to gain advantage from delaying tactics to creative field placements yet are deeply offended by actions that fall squarely within the rules.
A classic example is the widespread outrage among players when a batter is run out while backing up too far a dismissal entirely legal under cricket’s laws. Similarly, players often object when opponents seek treatment on the field or take time to steady themselves, accusing them of wasting time, despite those actions being allowed.
The Incident at Old Trafford:
The most recent controversy erupted during the final stages of the 4th Test between India and England at Old Trafford. India, battling to save the Test, had Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar batting heroically. Both were nearing centuries Jadeja in the 90s and Washington in the 80s after facing relentless English bowling throughout the day.
GAUTAM GAMBHIR 🔥
– Indian Coach talks about why India continued batting in the final hour. pic.twitter.com/G9q8lP4h3A
— Johns. (@CricCrazyJohns) July 28, 2025
As India stood firm, England, clearly out of options and exhausted, offered a draw at the beginning of the mandatory overs. India declined. England’s sudden shift in attitude from fierce competitors to moral arbiters was jarring.
Washington Sundar had twice previously been left stranded in the 80s and 90s in Test matches due to lack of support at the other end. This was likely his best chance to reach a well-deserved maiden Test hundred. England’s frustration seemed to boil over the moment India chose to continue batting instead of accepting the draw.
Also Read: India Pull Off A Sensational Draw, The Series Is Still Alive!
Playing by the Laws, Not Emotions:
The laws of cricket are clear: a match continues until the overs are bowled or both captains mutually agree to end it. India did nothing outside the framework of the rules by playing on. Captain Shubman Gill allowed his batters who had batted with immense resolve a chance to cap off their effort with a personal milestone. These moments matter. The English dressing room itself celebrates individual landmarks with gusto. It would be disingenuous to suggest that players do not value personal achievements, especially when there is no risk to the team’s position.
India knew the situation. Had there been a realistic chance of a collapse, Gill might have acted differently. But with Jadeja and Washington rock-solid and the pitch offering nothing, India saw no harm in continuing for a few more overs.
The Stokes Statement and Its Implications:
After the match, Ben Stokes was asked if he would have allowed a batter to chase a century under similar circumstances. His response questioning what difference “ten more runs” made came across not as practical leadership, but as an imposition of his personal belief system onto the game.
‘Ten more runs wasn’t going to change the fact that you’ve managed to get your team out of a very, very tricky situation’ 🗣️
Ben Stokes on that massive Jadeja-Washi partnership 🤝 #ENGvIND pic.twitter.com/pnDrRw8pYn
— ESPNcricinfo (@ESPNcricinfo) July 28, 2025
The irony lies in the fact that England themselves have declared innings only after key personal milestones were achieved. Whether it was Joe Root’s century before the Wellington declaration or Ollie Pope’s double hundred before declaring against Ireland in 2023, England have not shied away from affording their players the chance at personal landmarks, even when the team objective was already well secured.
This incident wasn’t about strategy or time management. It became a case of moral posturing an attempt to present oneself as a purist, someone who plays the game “the right way,” despite benefitting from the same kind of decisions when it suits the situation.
The Real Lesson: Respect the Game, Respect the Rules
Cricket does not need a shifting set of moral rules that fluctuate depending on who is playing and what they feel at the moment. It needs consistency, clarity, and respect for the actual laws of the game.
Ben Stokes is a magnificent cricketer, one of the finest of this era. His passion, commitment, and leadership enrich the sport. But that does not mean his interpretation of what is right should be universal. Respect for opponents also means respecting their right to make decisions within the rules, even if they don’t align with your preferences.
What happened at Old Trafford was not unsporting, nor was it unjust. It was simply cricket played by the book, not by feelings. And sometimes, that’s exactly what the game needs.
