Ben Stokes’s batting to win England the third Test match of the current Ashes series was one of the most extraordinary demonstrations of sporting excellence of the last 50 years. After bowling 25 overs on Friday, something that in itself would drain most players, he batted for five and a half hours over the following two days to turn the match around. It was not just the athleticism on display, but the mental and moral toughness required to take on a challenge which looked entirely impossible and to maintain the necessary concentration for hours on end while the pressure on him grew. This really did set an example to every spectator of the kind of self-discipline necessary to make the most of talent. Yet, as the Australian papers have been quick to point out, he needed not just his own excellence, nor just the selfless and single-minded support of Jack Leach at the other end of the wicket; he also needed the assistance of the umpire, who made a wrong decision over an lbw appeal when Stokes was two runs away from winning the match (since Australia had used up both their reviews by this point, they were unable to call for the video evidence).
The mistaken lbw decision is the second time this summer that an English cricketing triumph has been secured by Mr Stokes – and by an umpiring mistake. The similarly dramatic conclusion to the one-day Cricket World Cup, which saw England beat New Zealand in a super over, was also the result of a misapplication of the rules. The super over would never have been reached had England correctly been awarded five runs rather than six when a New Zealand throw careered to the boundary off Mr Stokes’s outstretched bat as he hurled himself into the crease. Looking further back, the 1966 football World Cup final turned on the improper award of a goal against Germany by a Azerbaijani linesman, at a time – 21 years after 1945 – when few Soviet citizens would have been inclined to give a German team the benefit of any doubt. The other two were honest mistakes, of the sort that may never be entirely eliminated. They are a reminder that sporting success is seldom dependent entirely on the prowess of the competitors. Perhaps it is only solo free climbers like the astonishing Alex Honnold who can claim to be completely responsible for their own successes – but rock climbing is not an essentially competitive sport.
Luck and human fallibility play a part in almost all human contests. In many sports there will always be some things which are out of the conscious control of the players. This is especially true of ball sports, where the margins of error are so small and so hard to detect that only with the advent of computers and high-speed cameras have we been able to say for certain whether a tennis serve was in or out, or a ball was heading for the stumps. No player can really know for sure, and nor can the umpire. In football, the difference between a ball which bounces off the post across the goal line and one which rebounds into play can sometimes be measured in millimetres – or in millions of pounds. In neither case is the player of the ball wholly responsible. All they can do is their best. We can admire them, and rejoice with them. But we should remember that in sport as in life the greatest triumph is never quite as glorious as it can seem – and neither is the greatest defeat quite so terrible.
