Ben Stokes Creates History, Becomes First England Captain To...
Ben Stokes was on fire with both bat and ball for England in the fourth Test against India, which ended in a draw at Old Trafford in Manchester on Sunday, July 27. The 34-year-old cricketer picked up five wickets for 72 runs in the first innings and then scored 141 runs from 198 balls as well. In the second innings, he bowled 11 overs and dismissed KL Rahul (90). For his superb all-round show at Old Trafford, Stokes bagged the Player of the Match award.
The POTM award in Manchester is Stokes' 12th POTM award in Test cricket. Only Joe Root (13 POTM awards in 157 Tests) has won more POTM awards for England in Tests than Stokes now.
Most POTM awards in Tests for England
13 – Joe Root
12 – Ian Botham
12 – Ben Stokes
10 – Kevin Pietersen
10 – Stuart Broad
Stokes has scored a total of 304 runs and picked up 17 wickets in the ongoing series. He is the first England captain in Test cricket's history to aggregate 300-plus runs and bag 15-plus wickets in a Test series. The only England player to achieve this double in a Test series in the last 40 years was Andrew Flintoff in Ashes 2005.
Test ends in a draw
India pulled off a remarkable draw at Old Trafford on the final day of the fourth Test, thanks to heroic centuries from Ravindra Jadeja (107*) and Washington Sundar (101*).
After conceding a 311-run first-innings lead and losing both openers for ducks, India were staring at defeat. However, captain Shubman Gill (103) and KL Rahul (90) stitched a crucial 188-run stand before Ben Stokes and Jofra Archer struck back in the morning session.
With the match slipping away, Jadeja and Washington showed immense grit, batting through more than two sessions and adding an unbeaten 200-run partnership to save the game. Their calm under pressure frustrated England, with even captain Stokes showing visible displeasure as India continued to play to reach individual milestones.
This was just England's second draw in 40 Tests under the Bazball era. The series, now hanging in the balance, moves to a thrilling finale at The Oval on July 31.
view comments
First Published:
July 28, 2025, 07:00 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Nasser Hussain slams Ben Stokes' ‘silly' move: ‘He didn't have to bowl Brook… Washington & Jadeja deserved to be there at the end'
The Manchester Test between India and England, which seemed to be ending for a quiet draw took a u-turn quickly after England skipper Ben Stokes went to the Indian batters and offered his hand to call an end to the match before the last hour's play was to start. But with Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar batting on 89 and 80, the Indians didn't take the offer from Stokes and chose to continue batting. Former England captain Nasser Hussain said he didn't have a problem with the call made by the Indian team, and both Jadeja and Sundar deserved to be there at the end. 'I didn't have a problem with it. England did. They had tired bowlers and tired legs and wanted to get off but the two lads had worked hard to get into the 80s and 90s and wanted hundreds,' said Hussain to Sky Sports. 'Stokes didn't have to bowl Harry Brook and it looked a bit silly but we make too much of these things. India deserved the draw and Washington and Jadeja deserved to be there at the end,' he added. Shortly after this drama, Jadeja scored his century as Stokes resorted to bowling loopy deliveries to him through Harry Brook. Jadeja slammed a six down the ground to score his 2nd Test century. Sundar, too, reached his maiden century as India finally agreed to end the hard-fought match in a draw. A visibly frustrated Stokes said after the match, 'I don't think there would have been much more satisfaction in walking off 100 not out, getting your team out of a tricky situation, than walking off at 80 or 90 not out. Scoring 10 more runs isn't going to change the fact you've saved your team from a series defeat.' India head coach Gautam Gambhir asked that if the shoe was on the other foot, would England have done the same? 'If someone is batting on 90 and the other one is batting on 85, don't they deserve a hundred? Would they have walked off? If someone from England side was batting on 90 and 85 and someone had the opportunity to get his first Test 100, wouldn't you allow him to do it? They weathered the storm. It's up to them. If they want to play that way, nothing more to say. I think both those guys deserved a 100 and fortunately they got it,' he said on Sunday at the post-match press conference.
India.com
29 minutes ago
- India.com
India vs England: Was Ben Stokes Right To Offer Early Draw? ICC Rules And Team India's Response Explained
The final day of the fourth Test between India and England at Old Trafford offered high-quality cricket — and an unexpected flashpoint. With just an hour left, England captain Ben Stokes invoked ICC Playing Condition 16.1.1, offering an early draw under the provision that allows both captains to agree that no result is possible. But when India declined — with Ravindra Jadeja on 89* and Washington Sundar on 80* — tensions flared, and the spirit of cricket was suddenly up for debate. Also Read: Explained: Why India Can't Withdraw From Asia Cup 2025 Fixture Against Pakistan – BCCI's Hands Tied So, who was right? Was Stokes justified in wanting to end early? Or did India have every right to chase personal milestones within the laws of the game? The ICC Rule Explained: What Does Law 16.1.1 Say? According to ICC Test Match Playing Conditions, Clause 16.1.1 states: "A match is drawn if no result is possible and both captains agree to terminate play." Importantly, this is not mandatory. It's a mutual decision — and a captain has every right to decline the offer. In this case, India exercised that right, with Jadeja and Sundar closing in on well-earned centuries after saving the match. India had lost only four wickets and were 75 runs ahead. The pitch was docile. The threat of collapse had passed. The team was safe — but the batters still had personal landmarks within reach. The match situation allowed it. The ICC rules allowed it. And so did the unwritten rules of Test cricket pride. Stokes Offers Draw, India Declines — Tension Follows Ben Stokes, nursing niggles and mindful of his bowling unit's workload, decided enough was enough. England had bowled 257.1 overs across five days. Archer and Woakes were visibly fatigued. Liam Dawson, the left-arm spinner, had bowled long spells exploiting the rough. Stokes offered the draw under Law 16.1.1 — and when India declined, frustration took over. Stokes turned to Jadeja and sarcastically asked: 'Jaddu, you want to get a Test hundred against Harry Brook and Joe Root?' The remark, caught on stump mic, sparked immediate criticism. Was it fair for Stokes to question India's intent when the law clearly permitted them to continue? Gavaskar, Gambhir, Manjrekar: The Verdict from Indian Legends Veteran commentator Sunil Gavaskar was quick to defend India. 'If a batter has weathered two sessions and saved the game, why shouldn't he aim for a century?' Gautam Gambhir, India's head coach, echoed the sentiment: 'They deserved that hundred. They fought hard. You don't walk off just because the opposition is tired.' Sanjay Manjrekar didn't hold back: 'Stokes behaved like a spoilt kid. Everything won't go your way just because you ask nicely.' Brook's Bowling and the Protest in Disguise After India declined the draw offer, England made a mockery of the final overs. Harry Brook, not a frontline bowler, sent down underarm lobs at 60 kmph. Jadeja responded by launching one for six to complete his century. Sundar followed soon after with his maiden Test hundred. Only then did India agree to shake hands. Was this England's passive-aggressive protest? Or was it a moment of sportsmanship gone wrong? What Does the ICC Rule Say About This? Crucially, nowhere in the ICC rules is there a stipulation that batters must accept a draw if offered. Nor is there any provision for enforcing one without mutual agreement. Law 16.1.1 exists to allow a draw — not force one. India, having secured the draw on merit, played well within the framework. In fact, continuing to bat — while seemingly milestone-driven — also served strategic goals. With just three days before the final Test at The Oval, India kept England's tired bowlers in the field longer. Tactical? Yes. Petty? Not at all.
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
ENG vs IND 4th Test: The theatre of refusal
By the time Ben Stokes extended his hand, England had exhausted its. The host had tried swing, seam, short balls, and long spells. It had coaxed, cajoled, and, as the final hour arrived, hoped. And yet, as the England captain approached India's unbeaten pair of Washington Sundar and Ravindra Jadeja with an offer of truce on the final afternoon in Manchester, it was declined. Firmly. This was the fourth Test of a finely poised series. India, trailing 1–2, had spent the better part of five sessions clawing its way out from under. The deciding fifth Test, at The Oval, loomed just three days away. There was logic in Stokes' gesture. There was resolve in India's refusal. There is, rightly, much talk about the 'spirit of cricket'. It is often treated as a lofty idea, upheld or undermined by grand gestures. But most of cricket's spirit resides in the mundane: how a batter walks away from a caught-behind, how a fielder reacts to a poor decision, how a team defends a draw when a win is out of reach. ALSO READ | Stokes ready to deal with increased workload, optimistic about playing in 5th Test India had been asked to do something almost anachronistic in this era of T20 muscle memory: bat five sessions to save a Test. And it did so without fuss or controversy. On a day when England expected cracks to appear, all it found were dead ends. So, when Jadeja and Sundar declined the early handshake, it was not a rejection of sportsmanship but an assertion of something more grounded: the right to finish the job, on their terms. A century apiece beckoned. The bowlers, meanwhile, would have to carry their burdens just a little longer. That small act acquired a little more colour in the post-match retelling. The stump mic caught a voice, later attributed to Stokes, asking: 'Jaddu, do you want to get a Test hundred against Brook and Duckett?' Jadeja responded, 'What do you want me to do, just walk off?' To which Zak Crawley, never one to miss a cue, offered: 'You can, just shake your hand.' "If you want a hundred, you should have batted like it earlier" "You're going to get a Test hundred against Harry Brook & Ben Duckett" #ENGvIND | # — Sportstar (@sportstarweb) July 27, 2025 And then came the theatre. Brook, fresh from playing supporting actor on the stump mic, was handed the ball. This was cricket as a gesture, a theatrical shrug dressed up as a spell. The deliveries floated down like reluctant emails. The fielders loitered with the listlessness of extras waiting to be cut. Jadeja and Sundar, having already declined the earlier invitation to vacate the crease, now helped themselves to the buffet. Each raised a century. The stand ballooned to 203. Brook's spell will not be remembered as much for what it was, but for how it wasn't anything else. Amid all this, Stokes looked perplexed. Some saw it as a misreading of the moment; others as a glimpse of pragmatism disguised as nobility. But neither party was wrong. England sought rest and renewal. India sought reward and recognition. The game, in its quiet, unglamorous way, allowed space for both. In the end, the draw was agreed upon with 10 overs left. The match, one of grit rather than glory, may not linger in highlight reels, but it deserves a place in cricket's ever-complicated ledger of honour. For it showed that the spirit of the game is not always in the handshake itself, but sometimes in the reason it must wait.
