#BTColumn – He’s amazing, but he’s only a man!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY. By Damian Edghill

“With only 70 runs needed for victory, why did Stokes play a shot like that?” Such is the cry of many an English cricket fan following Ben Stokes’ stunning innings of 155 on the final day of the Lord’s test, when England went on to lose by a seemingly small margin of only 43 runs.

Yet what should our expectations be of the limits of what athletes may be capable of? We would of course like them to be robots, and often think or dream of them as being superheroes. But they’re not, and here’s why.

Let’s start with this fact. In the past 146 years since the advent of Test cricket in 1877, Ben Stokes is the first player to score 150 or more runs when batting at 6 in the order or lower. This is itself an astonishing achievement, even before delving into the game situation he found himself in. Moreover, the cricket superman himself, the incomparable Sir Garfield Sobers, batted a lot at 6, but never reached 150.

That may be enough to end the discussion and any criticism of Stokes and what he could have done differently (were he not human), but we can have a look at Stokes’ innings compared with what is often considered to be the greatest Test innings of all time; Brian Lara’s 153 v Australia at Bridgetown in 1999.

To digress, the writer was a legal clerk in Bridgetown on that day, and us clerks were all huddled together over the radio, when in walked Mr. Stephen Farmer, a partner of the firm and a great all-round cricketer in his time. I can remember him with these words “What are you all doing? Lara is making history at Kensington. Go and watch!” With that, we were allowed to scamper off to join what the late Tony Cozier described as “the crowd that was in a pitch of frenzy!”.

Lara’s innings will always have the advantage simply because it was accompanied by victory, but the point here is this. Is it reasonable to expect Stokes to have done that? Batting with the tail and being on an already unprecedented 155, 70 more runs for England to win would have put Stokes at scoring nearly 200. Given that the highest previous scores of batsmen coming in at 6 or lower have been Adam Gilchrist (149) and Asad Shafiq (137), this would surely have been a super heroic feat! 

Without purporting to take anything away from Lara’s innings, here are a few comparisons for discussion. The West Indies’ target was 308 and England’s 371. Lara came in at 3/78 when WI needed 230 (Collins was night watchman). Stokes came in at 6 when England needed 257 to win. Arguably, therefore, Stokes had a much greater challenge on his hands. 

Some features of Stokes’ innings are breathtaking. When Johnny Bairstow was controversially run out (or stumped?), Stokes was on a placid 62 off 126 balls. No doubt, with the tail coming, many were wondering how he could possibly hold true to his previous emphatic statement that he did not intend to play for a draw regardless of the circumstances.

What followed immediately and with a sense of absolute decisiveness was nothing short of violent, as Stokes’ next 21 balls yielded 46, with his 151 coming up in 197 balls. By comparison, Lara’s 153 was made from 256 deliveries. Lara had less of a target to overhaul, more time in which to do so, and less of a tail to bat with, yet with his record-breaking innings, Stokes brought his team tantalizingly close to a victory which, had it been attained, would surely have gone down as one of the greatest and most unlikely in history. 

Whereas, England teams of the 80s and 90s lacked confidence, were made to fear failure and were dropped at the drop of a hat, Stokes the gladiator leads from the front and backs his men, and himself, at all costs. Courageous though he is, it is noticeable that he does get involved with histrionics. He is on record saying he did not wish to be distracted when Bairstow was given out stumped. Rather, it seems, he left the bad behavior to the MCC members.

The spectacle last Sunday was not Stokes’ first, and one is reminded of his top-ranked innings of 135 not out v Australia at Leeds in 1999. Ben Stokes has proved himself to be the greatest competitor of the modern cricket era. Thanks to him, the thought of a victory from seemingly impossible positions is no longer, in the words of Bob Marley “a fleeting illusion to be pursued but never attained.” It is now within the contemplation of human achievement.

Stokes and his team have transformed Test cricket and freed it from the bondage of boredom. Two Ashes losses are not palatable to some, as there is that element of the Test cricket fan base who prefer to avoid a loss at all costs, than be defeated. Be they as they may, not a seat at Leeds will be empty. With Stokes at the helm, the chances of a draw result there would tend to be zero. England trail in the series 0-2, but so long as Stokes is around, the Australian continent shall not know peace.

Damian Edghill is an attorney-at-law and independent writer. dedghill@barbadoslaw.net ]]>