KARACHI: Former cricketer Michael Vaughan on Wednesday insisted that all-rounder Ben Stokes should not be sacked as England Test captain for violating the team’s curfew after the first Test of the three-match home series against New Zealand.
Stokes, left out of England’s 15-man squad for the next Test against New Zealand along with Gus Atkinson, faces an uncertain future after the ECB gave him time to consider his options following an altercation with Saracens rugby player Toto Awa in a nightclub.
The ECB is expected to take disciplinary action against both players for breaching the team code of conduct, with officials keen to allow Stokes to make his own decision about his future.
Meanwhile, amid growing speculation that Stokes may retire from international cricket altogether, international media reported that Stokes is set to meet his advisors today to decide his future.
However, Vaughan, who has represented England in 82 Tests, 86 ODIs and two T20Is, dismissed the breach of the team’s curfew as a disqualifying offence, while hailing the 35-year-old’s services as his captain and all-rounder.
“Yes, Ben Stokes broke the curfew. Yes, he made a mistake. But is that an offense to be sacked as England’s Test captain? I don’t think so,” Vaughn wrote in the Daily Telegraph.
“Stokes has a lot of credit in the bank for everything he has done for England as a captain and an all-rounder. There is no way the same credit can be in the bank for the big decision-makers at the England and Wales Cricket Board,” he added.
The former opener advised the ECB to be “courageous and strong” enough to take the decision, while reiterating his disapproval of Stokes’ sacking as captain.
“We’re now at the point where they’re going to put their necks on the block and say, ‘OK, we’re going to fire you for that crime,’ or they’re going to support him and move on,” Vaughan continued.
“The ECB trusts Stokes to take a decision on its behalf. But it has to be bold and strong enough to do what it thinks is right. If that means sacking him, that would be fine, but I don’t agree with that decision on this issue.”
Vaughn, who admitted his involvement in the Bristol incident 10 years ago, instead mentioned a short suspension as a possible option in Stokes’ case.
“A short break would be nice, but it’s not a big event to lose the captaincy. I know he was involved in the Bristol incident, but that was almost 10 years ago and I don’t remember him being in a pickle after that,” suggested Vaughan.
“With that in mind, I don’t see how you can say Stokes is no longer captain for breaking curfew less than two hours after the win.”
Michael Vaughan later dismissed the idea that Stokes would lose respect in the dressing room because of the nightclub incident or breaching the team’s curfew, citing the example of white-ball captain Harry Brooke, who was supported by fellow England players ahead of the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup earlier this year.
“I don’t buy the fact that he has lost respect in the dressing room or will struggle to impose authority in the future. Did Harry Brooke lose the respect of his players as a white-ball captain after the Wellington incident?” Vaughan questioned.
“No. Actually, England tell us how well he came back and captained in the Twenty20 World Cup.”