The batsman drops the ball onto the leg side and Ben Stokes runs after it. As he catches up with it he hurls the ball into the ground with a cry of disgust. His face is the same vivid red as his shirt. It caps an over spent screaming at his fielders, berating them as he beats his hands and curses in frustration. England’s fielding has been average. But watching Ben Stokes’ reaction to it is like watching a pipe burst the day after you’ve had it fixed.
The commentators praise his passion; they talk up his efforts to lift the team. In isolation, that may be exactly how it appears. But for a player with an affinity for hostility, who, throughout his career, has tight-roped the line between passionate aggression and violence, it is another worrying notice of the Ben Stokes that lives at a shallow depth under the surface.
On the 5th December, Stokes, along with Alex Hales, faces a two-day hearing on charges of bringing the game into disrepute. During this time, the commission will deliberate whether the two should face punishment for their part in the well-publicised drunken brawl on the 25th September 2017.
While the legal proceedings have been resolved – and, regardless of what armchair theorists believe about his fame either damning him or saving him, correctly – there is no guarantee that the two players, both of whom possess lengthy records of disciplinary issues, won’t face further sanctions for their mid-series antics.
Many commentators – and we should really take a moment to note how much of the commentary on the whole Stokes Affair came from male voices – cite Stokes missing eleven ODIs and the Ashes as “punishment enough.” No one’s mentioned whether the two ODIs missed by Hales are deemed enough, however. And while people argue over what Stokes did and didn’t do, and whether the pair deserves a fine or ban, it is worth questioning – seriously worth questioning – whether the ECB are simply ignoring the long-term implications of both players’ histories that they could, and should, address.
It’s no secret that the ECB’s handling of Stokes’ arrest and subsequent trial has been curious. A ready-made precedent appeared to be available in how Derbyshire handled Shiv Thakor when, having been arrested in the summer of 2017 on suspicion of indecent exposure, he was immediately suspended with full pay. Once charged, he was suspended from all cricketing activity by the ECB and, following his eventual conviction, released by Derbyshire.
A similar process was followed by Worcestershire with Alex Hepburn, albeit with interference from Steve Rhodes. In difficult situations, the two clubs handled themselves and their players admirably – certainly as well as anyone could expect. An objective viewer might be forgiven for thinking there was a framework in place. But the ECB demonstrated that this careful handling of criminal proceedings was the clubs’ own discretion and, in turn, deployed a confused strategy for handling Stokes’ charge of affray that, at most times, was about as transparent as my big toe.
Starting sensibly, Stokes and Hales missed the remaining ODIs against Australia in order to be available to the police. Once the investigation was concluded and evidence passed to the CPS, there was perhaps an opportunity to justifiably include Stokes in the Ashes squad. Erring on side of caution, however, Stokes was left out.
Then, after a disastrous Ashes in which England lost to a rampant pre-scandal Australia 4-0, the ECB U-turned. Despite being formally charged in January, Stokes was selected for the tour of New Zealand and then played up until the beginning of his trial. ECB spokespersons, as well as many commentators, claimed this decision was “only fair.”
One can’t help but feel the whole process went in reverse. It raises the question of whether events might have unfolded the same way had, say, James Vince – or any other player not so central to the perceived balance of England’s eleven – become involved in a violent street brawl. Question too, how, if you became embroiled in lengthy proceedings relating to a violent crime, your employer might react when thinking on the ECB’s argument that it was “unfair to keep Stokes from his livelihood.”
Rather, the whole thing felt like remarkably poor judgement on the ECB’s part – confused thinking from a board that would later go on to think The Hundred is a good idea. The overwhelming impression wasn’t one of fairness to player or fan, but rather that losing so badly trumped any criminal investigation. Anyone but Stokes, and the whole affair might have been very different – though, it is hard to imagine anyone but Stokes getting involved in such an altercation.
Much as England cricket has an unhealthy relationship with legspinners, so too does it have a worrying attitude towards its all-rounders. We want them aggressive, in-your-face. We don’t talk enough about the likes of Chris Woakes, because he’s a correct batsman and a skilful bowler with a soft-spoken manner. We want hostility. The moment we see it in the opposition, we call it a line crossed – we question Kohli when he berates fielders and umpires, decry Warner when he taunts our batsman. But when it’s our all-rounders – be it Botham throwing a punch at Chappell or Stokes knocking lamping someone in the early hours – it’s passion; it’s spectacle.
The incident in Bristol is but one moment in a long history of over-aggression verging on violence from Ben Stokes; a history of acting out in inappropriate and damaging ways. Whether it’s being sent home from a Lions tour for drinking until 5:30am (and then doing it again despite management’s warning), putting his fist through a locker in the West Indies and receiving a broken wrist for his trouble, or collecting de-merit points like they’re Pogs, Stokes has made a habit of getting himself into hot water.
But from the moment Stokes became central to England’s plans we’ve defended it, and enabled him to continue down a self-destructive path that has spilled over to hurt others – and may well do again. Stokes’ temperament has been eloquently summed up by Martha Kelner as: “A fiery disposition [that] often works to his advantage on the cricket field but on occasion it has left the people around him, particularly those charged with managing his talent, exasperated.”
It wasn’t so long ago that Stokes was talking of self-improvement, being filmed walking down the river in his native Durham speaking about how much he had mellowed since having a child. Only a few days before the Bristol brawl he was recorded stating: “The adrenaline is there. But I’d never get close to punching someone… I’ll have a few pints the night before a match. I’m 26, not 14.” It sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It’s not far from the rhetoric David Warner spun when he adopted his The Reverend moniker. For both, it was little more than a thin façade. The short fuses had only grown shorter, and the alleged Zen was soon dismantled.
Now Warner is gone, as much a victim of the violent culture he helped fashion as a ball-tampering scandal, and it isn’t certain he will return. But are we in danger of losing Stokes eventually as well? In talking of punishment and bans, are the ECB focussing their energies in the right place? For a man whose emotions are central to his decision making, is a ban going to get the message across? Red-faced rants at colleagues might not look like much to a public who enjoy the anger, but when observed in the context of his history, it is a worrying continuation of a trend. How long before shouting at his own team becomes screaming at the opposition? (Likely not so long given his relationship with the West Indies team) How long will it be before Stokes finds himself in another situation like that of the 25th September 2017?
When Marcus Trescothick returned home from Australia in 2006, it marked the start of a sea-change in the way mental health is regarded in sport. It wasn’t immediately obvious, but a decade later we have seen massive improvements in how mental illness is treated not just in cricket, but in all sport. In sweeping Stokes’ ugly history under the carpet in favour of his perceived value to a team, are the ECB missing an opportunity to set an example on how to treat anger and over-aggression in the sport? And while we celebrate Stokes’ vitriol as little more than passion boiling over – perpetuating a boys will be boys attitude that should have died decades ago – we too are complicit in protecting and enabling a pattern of aggression that, for a player consistently his own worst enemy, can only continue if left unchecked.
Forget missing games, perhaps the ECB might focus on keeping a player they clearly value in the game, rather than patching single incidents with arbitrary punishments and possibly losing him down the line when his issues bubble over again – not to mention what might happen after he leaves the game. Would players like Alex Hales and Ben Stokes not benefit better from receiving better support for their disciplinary issues rather than sitting on the sidelines for a few days? Much as players in need of mental health support have access to professionals, would mandating long courses of anger management and counselling not be a more valuable “punishment” for players for whom self-improvement has failed?
The ECB has an opportunity in December to set a valuable precedent in the handling of players who too frequently, and too willingly, step over the line towards over-aggression and even violence. In advocating a holistic approach to addressing anger and aggression, the ECB could blaze a trail for other sports to follow – rather than sending their unruly players to sit in the corner for a while (or worse, doing nothing).
It remains to be seen what will come of the December hearing, but with the ECB famously short-sighted, there’s little hope that the players’ long-term welfare will be a consideration for a board more concerned with the balance of their team than the balance of their players.
Geoffrey Bunting
Anybody else would have been banged up. Take a look at the video – they weren’t playing a game of conkers.
No they certainly weren’t. But we have to trust the courts. And he was found innocent.
(Nervous editor!)
AB, I’m just going to reiterate that there’s no evidence these incidents took place. It’s just what you’ve been told and could be completely made up. We don’t want the lawyers involved!
Go out on the town any Friday or Saturday night and you’ll see far worse. I don’t think it’s fair to put extra emphasis on celebrities, who are more likely to be targeted by idiots trying to wind them up than us men in the street. I hate the modern trend for citing things like, you’ve got to be a good example to the kids. When someone swears in front of the camera there’s massive apologies, WHY? Travel on any bus and hear the language many parents use in front of their kids. Stokes in a natural hothead, but no more than plenty of others. My lad was a squaddie for years and would frequently come back from nights out with fighting scars, yet we see them in uniform and are encouraged to treat them as heroes. It is still the same person. I wouldn’t want to water Stokes down atall, it is an integral part of his character that will mellow as he grows older, as it does in everyone. I don’t see it as a problem for treatment at this level of sport.
Also, I don’t think you can talk about Stokes natural aggression in terms of what we expect from all rounders. Certainly Botham and Flintoff, the two obvious examples, were somewhat laddish but never displayed the sort of violent petulance Stokes does regularly. Indeed Flintoff was something of a gentle giant on the field, look at his arm round the shoulder of Brett Lee during the 2005 ashes, can you imagine Stokes doing that?
However, success as a top international in the physical world of sport requires a well developed competitive edge.This is an instinctive response to challenges and cannot be rationalised. I would say Stokes behaviour relects more that of a fast bowler, who traditionally have always reacted badly to dropped catches and misfielding, something we take for granted. If players cross the line on the field there is plenty of knee jerk PC protection and punishment these days to keep them in check.
Where the hell do you go! Any city area with night clubs in it will ‘kick off’ pretty much every night, hence the preponderance of bouncers. My lad was a bouncer for a time and got out of it because so many of his colleagues were using it as an excuse to batter people with impunity. The main reason I don’t do ‘Broad Street’ in Brum is I don’t want the almost inevitable hassle of it. At weekends there are a stream of Police vans parked up waiting to take the protagonists away. Stokes is no Psycho, he has a natural hotheads temper. You epitomise the hysterical over reaction to one of the most common features of a ‘lads night out’. Up north, especially in places like Newcastle and Manchester, drinking and fighting has become a ritual, especially on a Friday night. Here they don’t even need a reason and the girls get involved as well. The only reason this sort of thing seems rare is that it doesn’t happen in front of CCTV, it’s kept off the streets.
If you live in a chav city area, like millions do, violence is close to the surface all the time.
Stokes was found essentially not guilty as charged, if he had been found guilty he would have gone to prison, just like anyone else, there’s no evidence to support an elitist conspiracy theory in this case.
You’re 100% right that it happens everywhere and all the time. However, sport in general shouldn’t Be tolerating such behaviour or ‘hothead’. Stand up agaisnt it snd show there is no place for acts of thuggery, acts of ‘hothead’ on the field etc
He is supposed to be a professional after all. Amateur games are supposed to be enjoyable not places for the rude and violent to vent their anger
I totally agree and there is no place for thuggery on the cricket field. However it comes in various guises. Jardine’s Bodyline was certainly a form of thuggery. Clive Lloyd’s managing of his fast bowling armoury was certainly thuggery at times. Most fast bowlers hate batsmen with a passion and Stokes’ on field antics pale into insignificance compared to these life threatening tactics.
I just feel he is being singled out as an easy target for self righteous indignation. Almost every professional Rugby match has incidents of thuggery which never make the headlines and are potentially much more severe than anything Stokes gets up to on or off the cricket field and youngsters are actively encouraged to watch and imitate.
Politely, ditto, as we evidently move in completely different circles we will have to agree to differ, as all I’ve said I see today on a regular basis. In 1983 I was not even 30!! It is dangerous to criticise from an ignorant standpoint. From where I stand the only bollocks is your assessment of me. I am still a staunch blues nose and go to pubs regularly after matches, both home and away and see plenty of verbal and physical violence. It is an expected part of going out away from your local when the liquor is flowing and the passions are high. I would never dream of wearing favours outside the grounds.
Only a few months ago I was at a pub quiz at the Selly Park Tavern and there was an altercation over scoring which resulted in a team being evicted and this in a pub full of students and respectable middle class middle aged folk. Sign of the times me thinks.
This country is an angry place by and large and becoming more intolerant all the time.
The Brexit debate perfectly reflects this with its scaremongering tactics looking to incite petty prejudices. Johnny Foreigner cannot be trusted as he doesn’t speak English. That’s about where the level of public debate has been from the start.
Do you ever read anything I write!!!! I find your attitude insulting and ignorant!! It couldn’t possibly be that I’m not taking bollocks could it?
When did I ever say me or my mates get involved in it. Like most sensible blokes we walk away. I think it’s best we don’t discuss each other’s articles of you can’t be bothered to pay attention to what I’m writing.
“we should really take a moment to note how much of the commentary on the whole Stokes Affair came from male voices”.
No, we shouldn’t – we should listen to the quality of the commentary, not the gender or anything else about the ‘identity’ of the people making it. The problem with the “punishment enough” argument is that it’s rubbish, not that it’s supposedly made by men.
Superb first day’s play in the Third Test in UAE by the way. Some prefer their keepers gym-ripped and IPL-enriched to smash their way out of trouble; I’ll take a proper keeper batting blood, sweat and tears to keep his team in the game. There’s still room in the sport for the latter – but only just.
I am torn on this one. On the one hand I do not, for a moment, believe that justice was done in the courts. On the other hand, the court process took place and to now hold a further hearing smacks of double jeopardy. I am even more confused about Hales than Stokes. Hales was not charged and so, in the view of the police and CPS, had done nothing wrong. So, on what grounds is he being hauled up by the ECB? Association with Stokes and having a drink?
I thought it was impossible to make Stokes appear a victim, but the incompetents, luvvies and geriatrics of the ECB seem bent on doing just that. Perhaps it is all a cunning plan to rehabilitate him in the eyes of the public? What England really need is two things; firstly, that a plane crashes on a building hosting an ECB committee meeting, and secondly, that someone emerges in the England camp to fill the role of Peter (Popeye) Willey from the 1980s. The best solution to the problem that is Stokes would be if someone explains to him (as Willey did to Botham) that if he does not behave he will be removing a bat from his rear end.
Sorry Marc but I don’t think you can condone what Stokes did by giving examples of ‘far worse’ incidents.I’m not for one minute saying any thug would use Stokes as an excuse for what they did on the street, but when it becomes headline news then kids do see it and they are prone to copying their ‘heroes’.
You only have to look at the antics that go on in any kids’ kickabout and you see them acting out what they see in the PL. How long will it be (if not already happening) that they’re copying Stokes on a cricket pitch ?
As a civilised society we don’t (or at least I don’t) want to hear of ‘lads’ fighting on nights out. Maybe I’m a bit naive but surely we should be seeking to progress more in the evolutionary scale than having a punch up after a few beers.
This perhaps gets away a bit from the case in point but I do think Stokes should be treated in the same manner anyone else would be, and not because we may lose a couple of cricket games if he (a ‘star’ player) doesn’t play – although personally I feel the ECB are reacting to this case far too late in the day, and they should have arranged a hearing a few days after the criminal case was completed, or at least after learning whether Stokes was going to appeal or not.
I have never condoned what Stokes did!!!
What I am saying is that he was cleared of the charges. So unless you want to play the conspiracy stakes, you let it lie and move on. I was not there, I did not witness the affair, so am in no position to be judgemental. Stokes is not a victim or a psycho and if he had have been found guilty he would have gone to prison. But he wasn’t and didn’t and that is how he should be judged.
Where you get the idea from that we are a civilised society I don’t know. At work and at play we are self seeking and any act of true altruism is a comparative rarity. It seems to take very little to peel back the veneer of ‘civilisation’. I don’t see this as cynical, just a reflection of human nature by and large. We have clearly come along way over the centuries but have a long way to go.
I have no time for Stokes whatsoever. He had history before the Bristol thuggery. I would have him nowhere near the England team, irrespective of his ‘value’. His is one of the few well known faces of the game and should be seen as a role model.
However I do struggle with the timeframe. The hearing should have taken place long ago. I’m sure that we’ll hear that both he and Hales have suffered enough. It’s hard to guess whatever the ECB – not renowned for having cojones – will do. I’d like to think that there will be a final warning and that any further display of violence will result in his being banned from international cricket. Given that he is an aggressive hothead he needs help to manage his temper.
Hales, as far as I’m aware, is a different matter. Keeping him away from characters like Stokes would be a priority for me.
I suggest you read what Stokes’ colleagues in the dressing room have to say. It was Root’s idea to make him vice captain and he clearly fulfills a role in both the ‘backs to the wall’ and ‘grind them down’ stakes. I don’t see it as a coincidence that we capitulated in the ashes when he wasn’t there and maintained a consistent level of superiority in Sri Lanka when he was. Away from home particularly you need strong personalities as you are together in adversity from first day to last. Butler is clearly not a strong personality. Stokes clearly revels I this and although he occasionally strays over the line, which I in no way condone, cricket has always been full of these types of uncompromising individuals. Truman’s antics come to mind here. In an age before wall to wall media analysis in sport he got away with a lot that would be totally unacceptable now, on and off the field.
I in no way condone Stokes violence off the field but I see the reaction to is as completely over the top. Why should we expect top sportsmen to be examples 24/7. Our squddie lads certainly give it large off duty, yet this is conveniently overlooked as we ‘Help the Heroes’ adapt back to civvy street, a perfectly laudable thing.
What on earth are you blathering about in bringing the legendary FST into this?
Exactly what did he get away with? He, like many Yorkshiremen of his era, was a tough uncompromising player but he was not a thug and an out-of-control red-faced nutter. I think you need to take time off from listening to Brexit debates.
I always assumed that he was left out of the Ashes because it was assumed that the Police/CPS might come to a decision on further proceedings during the tour and either Stokes would have to leave the tour / his mind would not be on cricket. It seemed a fair enough course of action to me until the Ashes ended and there was still nothing from the CPS, whice left them in a pickle. There was also the legal question of continuing ban when he’d not been charged or found guilty of anything.
I’mean unsure what would be gained by additional bans apart from satisfying the lust of the ‘outraged’ social media shouting factory but there probably should be some kind of additional actions / consequence, be it some kind of community service or something I don’t know.
As far as his temperament goes, it’s always a fine line when the competitive fires that drive certain personalities to succeed tip over into unacceptable behaviour. It’s about them and those around them finding a balance without losing what makes them unique / successful.
Para 2 should read “I’m unsure”
It just sadly shows the ECB only care about cash. If they had any morale decency about the game they’d have thrown him out and made it obvious to everyone that his on field gobbing off and his off field violence and petulance isn’t tolerated. Instead, what we will see on Saturdays is more ‘hotheads’ giving out verbals and gestures and threats ‘because stocks does’ or ‘its a mans game’
Add that to all those who deride Warner for verbals and then say ‘I can’t wait to see him near the Hollies’
As if the Hollies is something special.. it’s a pissed up bu ch of louts who simply abuse payers in the name of sport. Again, this should be banned because quite simply, has no place
I’d simply not allow any player like this through the ranks and stamp it out st all levels once and for all
One of the issues here is that celebrities and famous people more often ” get away with it” because they have expensive lawyers and people with influence on their side. The likes of us filmed thumping a guy repeatedly at 2am whether provoked or not would be in jail and/ or heavily fined for such behaviour. Blimey Jake’s virtually got away without criticism completely, so I don’t trust the court system here at all. Ok whether he should be suspended or worse is a matter of opinion, but I agree with others here that the ECB and other agencies need to be doing a lot more, such as professional counselling for instance. Also this has been going on for ever and the police were seriously pissed with the CPS for endless delays. We can’t and shouldn’t condone such behaviour but in a society obsessed with political correctness (vile term) I’m not surprised these incidents happen.
But anyway having said all that I wouldn’t have him in the side anyway based on recent form. He ain’t done very much to warrant it.
Hand on your heart, and be honest about this, there is no way you would ever consider thumping somebody whatever the provocation. Everyone has their breaking point and clearly Stokes is lower than most, but it doesn’t make him a psycho in need of treatment. None of us know exactly what was said inside and out apart from those who were there.
Of course being able to afford the best lawyers helps, but Stokes in hardly unique in this capacity.
As an epilogue, based on recent form, what England players warrant instant selection anyway. At least Stokes picked up a few wickets in Sri Lanka, with limited opportunity, something Anderson couldn’t do.
James – they (ie all of them) were found not guilty. Stokes most certainly was not found “innocent” irrespective of your nervousness (which I do understand).
The very charges brought we’re, in my humble opinion, a fucking joke. Three men charged with affray? Who exactly was supposed to feel threatened by their actions outside of the three? Answer: nobody. Most likely tactic of each defendants’ lawyers? Answer: confuse the position and turn it into a trial of them vs the other two defendants. Most likely verdict? Answer: definitively not guilty for all defendants.
Quite why nobody in the CPS couldn’t foresee this and bring a proper charge (ie ABH or GBB) I couldn’t possibly begin to fathom. Is it within the bounds of possibility that this was influenced outside of normal channels. Answer: Yes (but no evidence to that).
Consequences: Ben Stokes carries on being Ben Stokes and I’m not happy.
Finally, nothing will happen to Stokes. Hales to be frozen out as a warning to others.
Who said life was fair?
Interesting points raised in the article. The question of whether Stokes (or even Hales) should be let anywhere near the team poses a moral dilemma. Should we protect the reputation of the ECB (and the game at large) by not letting Stokes to resume his career or should we accept that the events of that fateful autumn evening were just a result of a few young men under the influence of alcohol which, by and large, occurs in most small towns and cities on most weekends up and down the country. It is a tough call to make indeed.
As I’ve grown older I’ve come to separate players and their off-field personas. Yes, one is a function of the other but I see Ben Stokes the player as a separate entity to Ben Stokes the man. Ben Stokes the player is capable of turning a game on its head with his all-round batting, bowling and fielding, not to mention the energy he brings to the team. But Ben Stokes the individual is a different beast altogether (excuse the pun) who is capable of occasional bouts of violence. The game is indeed richer for individuals like Stokes and over the years players like him have provided plenty of entertainment for us mere fans. However, knowing where to draw the line when it comes to aggression on the field and outside the pitch is something no one has the answer to (well, apart from the Aussies that is ;P).
Players like Stokes, Jesse Ryder, David Warner, Shoaib Akhtar, Mark Vermuelen, Pietersen et al are or have been part of the rich fabric that cricket has been woven from, but ultimately they will be judged on their performances on the field. In that respect the above players, despite being hugely talented, haven’t done full justice to their respective talents. The general assumption is that these players will mellow with age but that’s a big assumption to make. Banning them from international cricket may well cause them more harm than good, because, after all, cricket provides or provided these cricketers with an identity, self-esteem, fulfilment, financial stability etc.
I suppose after weighing up the pros and cons allowing Stokes to resume his career will give him something to work on and provide some meaning to his life, as long as his violent tendencies are carefully managed for his and the team’s own good.
Take the case of Pakistan for example, a team that has always been chockfull of highly talented but divisive players. They’ve performed at their best when they’ve had strong captains at their helm (Imran, Misbah) who knew how to get the best out of their players. Akhtar could’ve easily got into more trouble but because of the strong individuals around he was able to have a decent career of sorts (although it can be argued that he should have achieved a lot more). Whether Stokes is let back in is ultimately the decision of the ECB, and given the size of the backroom staff, it is inconceivable that they don’t have suitably qualified individuals in the form of a sports psychologist who could help him manage his emotions better.
As for Hales, as someone here said, the poor chap is being made to bear the brunt of an incident for which he was at best an unwilling accomplice.
To clear up a few points. The charge was affray because the CPS didn’t have a case for assault. The gay couple weren’t called because they were unreliable witnesses because they were so drunk.
Hales is a lucky boy because he was videoed kicking somebody in the head despite telling police he hadn’t seen the fight. Not sure why the CPS didn’t charge him with anything.
The affray thing seems neither one thing or another. Surely in a case like this there should be some kind of ‘being a drunken arsehole’ which is similar to affray but doesn’t require the 3rd party endangerment bobbins. Then they could have all been found guilty, given some kind of suspended sentence and community service and if Stokes had to miss some cricket if it clashed then so be it.
Just because in some more unsavoury areas of cities people want to beat the crap out of each other hardly justified Stokes or Hales behaviour. If you are in the public eye you should at least try to conduct yourself in a reasonable way, yes more than the man in the street, because it goes with the territory and like it or not you have a greater duty as a celebrity to do so. And one thing that no one has raised is what were they doing out at 2am pissing it up in the middle of an International series anyway?