Ben Stokes should not play in the third Test against India

The speed with which Ben Stokes has been brought back into the England squad indicates the regard in which he is held, and may also be seen as a desirable way of easing him back to normality. Perhaps it is. The immediate question is: should he play at Trent Bridge? Discussing the matter, very guardedly of course after the Lord’s Test, Michael Atherton suggested it might depend on his mental state. Doubtless this is the case, and it’s quite likely that being back playing cricket would be the best thing for him – but not necessarily, one may say, for England… This question is quite apart from action that English Cricket’s Disciplinary Committee (which is separate from the ECB) may eventually judge appropriate.

My guess is that Trevor Bayliss, Paul Farbrace and Joe Root may all be keen to have him back in the XI. The England team is currently in an unusual position. They are 2-0 up in a five match series, but they haven’t been altogether convincing. The bowlers have done splendidly, with a good deal of help from conditions at Lord’s, but the batting and slip-fielding have been disappointing.

Chris Woakes, who replaced Stokes at Lord’s, made a fine hundred. Joe Root made 80 at Edgbaston, Jonny Bairstow 70 there and 93 at Lord’s, and young Sam Curran 65 in the second innings at Edgbaston. That innings gave England their chance to win the Test. Curran also took 5 wickets there and was named “Man of the Match”, just as Woakes was at Lord’s. That’s only five half-centuries in three innings.

The debit side is a worry, an anxiety concealed only because, apart from Virat Kohli, India’s batting has been so dire. But too many players have contributed too little. Cook, Jennings and Buttler have an aggregate score of around 120 in nine innings. Stokes himself failed twice with the bat at Edgbaston. In short only the contributions with the bat from Bairstow, Root, Woakes and Curran have enabled England to get enough runs to be 2-0 up. The nearest thing to another worthwhile contribution at Lord’s was young Ollie Pope’s 28 in his first, and so far only Test innings.

Stokes bowled magnificently on the last morning at Edgbaston, but England’s problem at the moment is scoring runs, not taking wickets, and, when Stokes has played this summer, he has been mostly out of form with the bat. Of course, form is mercurial; his may come right at any moment. But the question is: if Stokes comes in, who drops out? The problem is that the two like-for-like replacements, Curran and Woakes, are two of England’s successes this series. It would be harsh to say to either: “thanks, you’ve done well, but we’d rather have Ben Stokes thank you.”

Bob Willis suggested that the player to leave out was Adil Rashid whose bowling certainly wasn’t needed at Lord’s. It might be needed at Trent Bridge. If Stokes replaced him England would have a five-man fast-medium attack with only Joe Root’s occasional off-spin as relief. In any case Rashid’s three wickets at Edgbaston were quite important.

As I say, England’s problem is their inability to make big scores, and in particular, to make a good start. If they now found themselves 2-0 down rather than up, they would surely be making changes at the top pf the order. As it is, it’s perhaps only the absence of any obvious replacements that is keeping Keaton Jennings and even Alastair Cook in the side.

The other player who might make way for Stokes is Jos Buttler who has failed three times with the bat and also dropped catches in the slips, though there he was lucky enough to be given second chances which he took. Considered simply as batsmen, Buttler and Stokes are rather alike; both capable of match-changing innings, neither consistent, Buttler averaging just over 30 in Test matches, Stokes a few points higher.

Logically, if they are keen to get Stokes back in harness immediately, Buttler is the player who should give way. This won’t happen because Buttler was Ed Smith’s first inspired left-field selection. To omit him now after three failures against India would seem to go against the grain.

The sensible course is to tell Stokes he must sit this one out, and field the XI that won at Lord’s. Stokes is innocent of affray – the criminal offence with which he was charged – but he has still been a bloody fool. To bring him back into the team at the expense of a player who has been a success and done nothing to bring the game into disrepute would be wrong. Actually, now that real county cricket is about to start again, I would send him back to Durham and tell him that he’ll be considered for England only when he has made some runs for his county.

Durham could do with him. England for the moment can do without him.