Leadership is supposed to encompass planning for every eventuality (let’s leave Brexit to one side for the moment) so one must assume that the England hierarchy is taking the precaution of planning for the possibility of an Ashes campaign without Ben Stokes.
The thought of it has the Australians rubbing their hands. They sense a win-win scenario here, which is how they like to place their bets. Without him, England are neutered. They are suddenly two players short. With him they will – rightly or wrongly – be accused of hypocrisy, especially after the ECB posturing over the David Warner affair in 2013.
By contrast the current situation seems nightmarish for England. Without Stokes they are missing their trump card; with him the entire tour party can expect to be subject to constant examination and provocation wherever they go in Australia. It is a mess.
Initially the thought of contesting the Ashes without Stokes makes the heart sink like a stone, so important is he to the balance of Joe Root’s side. So that identifies the first problem. If Stokes is absent the tour party has to move beyond the misery of a self-inflicted blow. They have to recognise a fresh challenge and go for it – what an achievement would it be to retain the Ashes without England’s best player? This may represent a huge leap of faith but it is the only way to go.
Inevitably Ian Botham springs to mind; he always does when discussing Stokes. England travelled to India in the winter of 1984-85 minus Botham and they were given little chance of success. Admittedly the circumstances were different since Botham, with due warning to the England hierarchy, had decided that he would have a winter off – the previous year’s tour to New Zealand and Pakistan, mischievously labelled “the drugs, sex and rock and roll tour”, had taken a toll. So the players bound for India had plenty of time to adjust to the fact that the side would be minus their great all‑rounder. England won the series 2-1, which was rightly construed as a minor triumph.
Botham was missed on and off the field. But there were also pluses in his absence, which could yet be mirrored this winter. After the alleged excesses of the previous year’s tour the off-field activities of the England party would have been monitored minutely by hard‑news reporters rather than gentle cricket correspondents. In those days Botham’s profile was bigger than Stokes’s is today.
Without him that burden on the players disappeared. The atmosphere was unusually relaxed, albeit on a tempestuous expedition which coincided with the assassination of Indira Gandhi and the Bhopal catastrophe. Moreover out of Botham’s shadow other players blossomed, most notably Mike Gatting, who suddenly established himself as a top-class Test batsman.
If Stokes makes the tour to Australia the scrutiny upon not only him but also every other member of the squad will be intense. Unlike the Botham era the ability to record anything in an instant increases the level of surveillance one thousand fold. There will be no hiding place for the England tourists. By the same token if Stokes is absent expectations of an England victory will plummet but there will also be the opportunity for someone (Chris Woakes is an obvious candidate but it could be someone more surprising) to transform their standing in the team. And it may be possible to have a quiet drink in a bar somewhere.
There will also be some thorny selectorial issues if Stokes is absent. It would leave England’s squad even lighter in experience of an Ashes contest; consequently the selectors may then pine for the presence of Jos Buttler, rather than a Ben Foakes, simply because he has a better idea of what to expect, but that decision has already been made.
The ominous reality is that England would require two players to replace Stokes as the balance of the side is disrupted. This betrays how important Stokes is to this set-up. They would have to agonise over whether to play the extra bowler or batsman when replacing him in the team. They may opt to play the extra batsman; hence they would need one more in the squad (without that they would not have any spares). More likely they would replace him with a bowler in the Gabba XI. So another paceman would have to be included.
The search for the right men would not be an uplifting experience (another barrier for all involved to overcome). The most obvious bowler may be Steven Finn, who has experience of two tours of Australia (the problem being that those experiences have been more negative than positive). Liam Plunkett may come back into the frame. The batsman? Probably not Alex Hales. Tom Westley? That would be more likely but his inclusion would not be ringing too many alarm bells in Sydney – hence the notion of Buttler bizarrely resurfaces.
Without Stokes, Root may arrive in Perth to be greeted by the time‑honoured welcome from local journalists: “Say, Joe, is this the worst England team ever to come to ’Stralia?”
As recently as 1954 Len Hutton was asked this question upon arrival and he whispered hesitantly – rather as Root sometimes does now – “Yes, it’s a young side; we’ve just come here to learn from you blokes and do our level best.” England won the series 3-1.
