- July 29, 2025
In most cases, when a Test match goes the full five days and ends in a draw, you welcome a sigh of relief, shake hands, and move on. But the Test match at Manchester between India and England in July 2025 did not do anything to really follow that path. After knocking off most of the two days while batting, with Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar closing in on memorable centuries, Ben Stokes was keen to put a stop to play.
Manjrekar thinks: he’s still mastering the basics of grown-up behavior
Sanjay Manjrekar called it straight. There was nothing shy about it – he referred to the England captain’s response as immature and likened Stokes to a “spoiled child” who was throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get their way. Yes, England had worked hard the entire day, and yes, their bowlers were tired. But Manjrekar made clear, when you sign up for five-day cricket, you cannot be shocked that the other team took all of it.
He pointed out that while Stokes may have expected India to agree to a draw, that decision wasn’t his alone to make. India had every right to continue. And let’s be honest, if Jadeja and Sundar were Englishmen chasing milestones, would the reaction have been different?
Aakash Chopra: “This Was Just Drama”
Aakash Chopra didn’t pull punches either. On his YouTube channel, the former India opener dubbed Stokes’ behavior as “drama,” calling out the double standards. He questioned the need for theatrics when the match was still in its final stretch of play.
“What power were you trying to show?” he said without pretense. For Chopra, it didn’t matter about spirit – he cared about optics. Pressure may burst pipes, but it forged centuries for Jadeja and Sundar, as they calmly batted through England’s storm of protest.No compromises. No apologies.
Gavaskar’s Golden Take: “Two Teams Play This Game”
So, that delightful truth bomb! Trust Sunil Gavaskar to drop a calm, cool truth bomb when it needed to be dropped. In a Sports Star column, Gavaskar said everyone should remember that a draw can only be agreed to by both sides. Just because England was done, it did not mean India also needed to be done.
Gavaskar took issue with England’s sarcastic comments about India scoring off a part-timer like Harry Brook. His response? Look at the four hours of grinding against frontline bowlers that got them to the 80s. Those centuries weren’t handed over—they were earned. England’s frustration, he felt, overlooked the bigger picture: grit, resilience, and survival.
Hussain’s Honest Take: “It Looked a Bit Silly”
Even the former England captain, Nasser Hussain, was not blindly supportive of Stokes here. Speaking on Sky Sports, he conceded that giving the ball to Harry Brook looked silly. He did try to downplay this, saying people make too much of these things, but he cited the Indian batters in this instance.
“They had worked hard to get into the 80s and 90s,” he said. “They wanted hundreds.” And who wouldn’t? When you’ve spent hours saving your team’s skin in tough conditions, surely a well-earned milestone isn’t too much to ask?
Michael Vaughan: “We’d Have Done the Same”
Michael Vaughan brought the hypocrisy hammer down hard. Speaking on Cricbuzz, he said flat out—if the roles were reversed, England wouldn’t have walked off either. Vaughan’s message was clear: England’s frustration came from losing control of the match’s narrative. But cricket isn’t about one team’s story. It may sting now, he said calmly, but that’s honesty doing its job.
