Not to steal your post, but I think you make some massively valid points.
I think you've aced it there - clearly by my username I'm a big Stokes fan, but the biggest question that still lingers is HOW did this happen? It's not like he didn't know the rules because HE put them there in the first place. And as for Atkinson, the argument about not knowing a curfew in place falls apart so fast when you look at the facts: a GROUP of them were at the pub with the rugby players before Atkinson and Stokes go onto the club and all of those players managed to make it back to the hotel for the curfew. So you have to assume at some point from them all leaving the pub to getting into taxis, someone said 'we should probably head back because, you know, curfew'.
It's a messy situation, and I think anyone focusing on the isolated incident is missing the point completely (as you said). This isn't about going out for a drink once the Test has finished. This is about breaking a rule that was evidently in place, and it's a bigger story because one of the people who broke the rule helped put it into action in the first place. If this had been two players that weren't the captain, it would already be wrapped up because they would have been suspended for the rest of the series without debate as a point that the ECB aren't wearing this lightly.
The biggest issue, and the one people are maybe starting to talk about now, is the fact that if the punch isn't thrown I'm confident the ECB would have hidden this. Again. And I think Stokes and Atkinson knew that; that it was the end of the Test, that the ECB wouldn't want the media shit storm about them being out, and so long as they kept their heads down they would get away with the curfew that they could argue if was or wasn't in place because of the end of the Test.
The biggest issue is who has the power here, and it's not the ECB. Due to the lack nature they've been allowed to operate in since McCullen became head coach, they have learnt actions on or off the field do not equate to consequences. All the players in the white and red ball squads watched as white ball captain Brook drank the eve of a game with other players, two of those players played in that game, got in an altercation with bouncers and lost not cricket and did not lose his position as captain and the ECB tried to cover it up.
If that's the standard you set, it's no wonder players think they can do what they want and won't have any repercussions for what they did.
If Stokes keeps the captaincy (which as a fan I hope he does), it unearths two big issues:
1) There is no future proofing for this team. They have no plan b for Ben. No one is waiting in the wings to replace him as captain, and they've built so much over the winter around him being captain until at least the end of next summer that it's a murky way forwards without him. The ECB need him more than he needs them.
2) The ECB has no control over their players. The relaxed environment that McCullum brought in with him four years ago has gone too far, and there may be respect but there is no discipline and no control. The players run the show and know that, know the ECB has little power over them, and they've never been taught that actions have consequences, on or off the field.
With, let's say 80% of the squad on the younger side, sure this attitude let them play with freedom and pull off some fantastic victories, but it's also installed a culture that they're untouchable. Until THAT changes, they're going to continue to have these issues in the dressing room. It's OK when you're winning, but as we saw over the winter, when you start losing it's a hard attitude to defend.
And this, I feel as I said the other day, is why Rob Key is so angry. Because he knows what he wants to do and how he wants to handle this to have the ECB come out on top of the narrative, and it's the one thing he can't really do.
blakekathryn
gracieabrams
turnnoffyourmind
2087
andulkaphoto
prguitarman
theartofmadeline
areudirty
tangentwithtanner
