What *should* Ben Stokes have done when Jadeja refused to accept a draw?

[TheJediBrah]

Weird that anyone would even have to ask this. If they just politely asked if they wanted to pull up stumps, were rebuffed, and went on with it then there would have been no story. Just adult and professional behaviour.

Instead they did what the English so often do and delude themselves into a twisted form of victimhood and spit the dummy like toddlers (eg Bairstow run out). Throwing a tantrum and bowling non-bowlers in a blatantly pathetic attempt to delegitimise well-deserved centuries for the Indian bats was worse than I would have expected from them in my wildest fantasies tbh

 

[ImpatientLime]

Weird take to a very plain statement.

Come on, 'Act like a man' in 2025.

 

[Gnske]

Resign.

Half their team begging for a draw within a two minute period. Abject and pathetic, what a mindset to have leading into an away Ashes.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Weird that anyone would even have to ask this. If they just politely asked if they wanted to pull up stumps, were rebuffed, and went on with it then there would have been no story. Just adult and professional behaviour.

Instead they did what the English so often do and delude themselves into a twisted form of victimhood and spit the dummy like toddlers (eg Bairstow run out). Throwing a tantrum and bowling non-bowlers in a blatantly pathetic attempt to delegitimise well-deserved centuries for the Indian bats was worse than I would have expected from them in my wildest fantasies tbh

I agree the self-pity was unedifying but why should Stokes risk injury to his main bowlers just so that opposition batters can get to three figures?

 

[the big bambino]

I agree the self-pity was unedifying but why should Stokes risk injury to his main bowlers just so that opposition batters can get to three figures?

I agree but that's not the concern of the batsmen though. If Stokes couched his objections around the risk to his main bowlers it would be acceptable. He must've understood the batsmen were going to refuse so they could reach their own centuries. So he should've had a plan to meet that inevitable rebuff. Just simply withdraw your main bowlers from the attack, bowl Brook and maybe Crawley until the milestones are reached then offer the draw. How hard is that? Instead he and Brook took the opportunity to act like jerks.

 

[Molehill]

Weird that anyone would even have to ask this. If they just politely asked if they wanted to pull up stumps, were rebuffed, and went on with it then there would have been no story. Just adult and professional behaviour.

Instead they did what the English so often do and delude themselves into a twisted form of victimhood and spit the dummy like toddlers (eg Bairstow run out). Throwing a tantrum and bowling non-bowlers in a blatantly pathetic attempt to delegitimise well-deserved centuries for the Indian bats was worse than I would have expected from them in my wildest fantasies tbh

Mate, have you seen the fall out from the Lions Test????

 

[Burgey]

lol that’s a refereeing decision not the petulance of a player

Stokes should have shut his whore mouth.

Also, no one in Australia gives a **** about rugby, it ranks fourth of our footy codes in terms of interest

 

[TheJediBrah]

I genuinely had no idea what "Lions Test" meant

 

[Spikey]

he should have not given up

 

[Burgey]

It’s where one northern hemisphere nation and three subsets of another put a scratch side together for some exhibition games but pretend it has national and international significance as they play against (and often narrowly defeat) a single southern hemisphere nation.

It’s a very odd phenomenon tbf.

 

[Spark]

I think unfortunately it's a sign of just how irrelevant union has become here that I haven't watched a minute of those games unfortunately; as a teenager I would have been utterly obsessed

 

[Molehill]

It’s where one northern hemisphere nation and three subsets of another put a scratch side together for some exhibition games but pretend it has national and international significance as they play against (and often narrowly defeat) a single southern hemisphere nation.

It’s a very odd phenomenon tbf.

It is odd tbh, I've only watched one game of the whole series and won't see the last. But it seems there were plenty who were pretty perturbed by that decision, it might even have helped stir further interest in the sport there.

I think unfortunately it's a sign of just how irrelevant union has become here that I haven't watched a minute of those games unfortunately; as a teenager I would have been utterly obsessed

Just out of curiosity, why did you lose interest? Was it because they became a bit rubbish (and I kind of get that if it's not something you're massively passionate about)?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I agree the self-pity was unedifying but why should Stokes risk injury to his main bowlers just so that opposition batters can get to three figures?

This question is backwards. It should ask why would they risk injury to PREVENT the opposition getting centuries. Try and get them out rather than gift it to them ffs

 

[Burgey]

I think unfortunately it's a sign of just how irrelevant union has become here that I haven't watched a minute of those games unfortunately; as a teenager I would have been utterly obsessed

Yeah, Ngl so would I

 

[TheJediBrah]

It’s where one northern hemisphere nation and three subsets of another put a scratch side together for some exhibition games but pretend it has national and international significance as they play against (and often narrowly defeat) a single southern hemisphere nation.

It’s a very odd phenomenon tbf.

Sounds like a bad deal for the British team. If they win, their team of 3 combined rugby-obsessed countries beat a team representing a single nation that doesn't care about Union, which should be expected. If they lose it's a massive embarrassment. It's lose/lose

 

[Spark]

It is odd tbh, I've only watched one game of the whole series and won't see the last. But it seems there were plenty who were pretty perturbed by that decision, it might even have helped stir further interest in the sport there.



Just out of curiosity, why did you lose interest? Was it because they became a bit rubbish (and I kind of get that if it's not something you're massively passionate about)?

No it was about the way the game was run. I was a Brumbies diehard when I was a kid, watched every game, followed the Wallabies religiously etc etc but as I grew older and learned more, the way the game was run - and specifically the noxious influence of the Sydney ultra-elite private school "boys club" set, who is a brand of person I unfortunately have a little too much experience with - was so deeply offputting that I just cbf any more. I understand that Raelene Castle wasn't the best administrator but the way she was undermined and pushed out by, no joke, a collection of The Worst People In The Country, stank to high heaven and then picking Eddie Jones again over a proven international coach because the administrators wanted to bring back the good old days was the last straw for me.

Imagine that Nigel Farage had veto power over sporting administration and you might get a sense of how bad it got. I'm open to watching the game, I enjoy the RWC, but I'm done with Australian rugby until I see evidence of top-to-bottom revolutionary reform in the way the game is run. Until then, I'll spend my time watching sports that aren't run by people who, in many cases, see me as subhuman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sounds like I would like Rugby Union

 

[Molehill]

Sounds like a bad deal for the British team. If they win, their team of 3 combined rugby-obsessed countries beat a team representing a single nation that doesn't care about Union, which should be expected. If they lose it's a massive embarrassment. It's lose/lose

You can't call them that, the Irish are in there too.

And it's hard to call them 'rugby obsessed' anymore either, they're suffering similar fates to Australia. Scotland has just 2 professional outfits, Ireland 4 and that's before you even mention how bad the state of rugby is in Wales. English rugby is very much a Private School affair now too.

Imagine that Nigel Farage had veto power over sporting administration and you might get a sense of how bad it got. I'm open to watching the game, I enjoy the RWC, but I'm done with Australian rugby until I see evidence of top-to-bottom revolutionary reform in the way the game is run. Until then, I'll spend my time watching sports that aren't run by people who, in many cases, see me as subhuman.

It ain't that much different. Go to Twickenham on a match day and you'll see more Barbour Jackets and red trousers than you ever knew existed. The only people I know who go now are there on Corporates, not because they like rugby.

 

[Blenkinsop]

This question is backwards. It should ask why would they risk injury to PREVENT the opposition getting centuries. Try and get them out rather than gift it to them ffs

OK, why should he risk injury to his main bowlers to PREVENT the opposition getting centuries at a point where it made no difference to the outcome of the match?

 

[Burgey]

It is odd tbh, I've only watched one game of the whole series and won't see the last. But it seems there were plenty who were pretty perturbed by that decision, it might even have helped stir further interest in the sport there.



Just out of curiosity, why did you lose interest? Was it because they became a bit rubbish (and I kind of get that if it's not something you're massively passionate about)?

Rugby went almost explosively behind a paywall not long after three 2003 WC. They basically pissed away a lot of goodwill and support they’d developed through the late 80s up to that time.