Arthur Crabtree wrote:Peculiar if cliched article in the Guardian from the usually level headed Vic Marks suggesting that Stokes' reckless behaviour might stem from the feeling of invincibility that is in the nature of great players. Which overlooks that the overwhelming majority of greats don't get involved in incidents like this and many pretty ordinary players do. Stokes is only a good player. More of a Jesse Ryder than a Rahul Dravid. There has been nothing in his career so far to suggest that he is an ubermensch that might be supinely supposed to operate by his own moral code
Such invincibility is much to do with the lack of constructive criticism of the player over the years, as much as any inherent latent quality in the natural psychological make up of the player. The truth is, Stokes has done some reckless things in the past, and has continued to play the game and act personally in a way that only results from lack of accountability. Stokes came to the fore in a team that had rapidly changed, that needed a new hero. And that hero style narrative plays out all the time. He cops very little criticism for anything bad he does, even now he has yet to apologise for his actions, and that is enough. Take the T20 final over; how many people said afterwards "but he Stokes, his never say die attitude will help him bounce back"..... never say die attitude? In the biggest moment in his life he crumbled like a gingerbread biscuit dunked in hot tea. If anything, he proved in the biggest challenges or pressure situations, he failed to stand up miserably. Without a doubt, in my eyes, he served up the worst over in cricket history in my life time. A point no one seemed to ram home. The myth of him being a steely, infallible character; does it live up to scrutiny?
Marks and others, with articles like that, feed the narrative. Its no surprise he indulges in reckless behaviour as he gets off with it. The aforementioned treatment in comparison to KP is a key example. Had KP done what Stokes had done, his career would be over. Stokes is judged on a vastly more lenient stance than others. His performances are judged in far more positive lights. His position in the team almost unquestioned.
Chris Woakes now averages the same with the ball, and one run away with the bat. For all that their personalities add or take away from a team environment, and adding in the fact Woakes has been dropped and never really had a decent run of games that Stokes has, one would assume with common narratives that Stokes is even lucky Woakes isnt taking his place in the longer term. But for some reason, Stokes is seen as vastly superior.