The Stokes verdict

[IlfordEagle]

People have been strangely quiet on here about this. What do people think after his verdict yesterday? I am not surprised - I always thought he would be acquitted but I don't necessarily agree with it, tbh I think he is a lucky man & I don't think he should be playing for Eng again so soon. he should be left out until any further disciplinary punishment is meted out by ECB.
As for Captaincy or Vice - he should NEVER be considered again as I believe he sets a poor example & has a volatile temper - basically he seems like a typical yob & not the best role model, nowhere near in fact.
I'd be interested to see what others think, I have a feeling he will divide opinion.

[nat]

He is a lucky boy. Guilty as sin. That said, now he has been found not guilty he should be punished and then considered for selection like everyone else.

[essexfan548]

From what I can gather the two people he was claiming to protect were not called as witnesses?

Personally I do think being seen brawling on the streets, even if for a claimed good reason, does bring the game into disrepute.

[Andy]

The two gay men he Protect/abused (delete as appropriate) seem to think he's a 'hero'. 

Stokes seems to have been a hit with the LGBTQ community though...

[LeedsExile]

Clearly the jury had been bussed in from the O J Simpson trial. If Stokes's name was Smith and he was not a high profile person he would now be serving a prison term. A classic example of all that is wrong with the outdated jury system.

[Perov]

Unlike those who are convinced  Stokes was guilty after viewing  a 30 second film clip, and reading snippets of evidence, the jury had to sit through a trial that lasted a week, consider all aspects of the case, and reach a decision.
If there was considerable doubt their deliberations could have taken days, but they reached a not guilty verdict in just two and a half hours.
With the low profile cricket has these days, it's debatable how many of the jury actually knew who he was.
So in my view Stokes was an idiot being in that situation in the first place, should not, at a later date, captain England, but has been found not guilty, and should now be considered for selection.

[Valentines Park]

Stokes is the kind of bloke you would want with you in the trenches.

& in the England cricket team.

[smandlej]

If Stokes' name was Smith, the matter wouldn't even have come to trial.  There's trouble like this in every town and city every weekend, possibly every night, but it would completely clog up the courts if they all came to trial.

Our question is - why wasn't Hales charged?  Our second question is - why weren't the two gay men called as witnesses?

Stokes is a hot-head, always will be.  Stokes and Hales should be told that, should there ever be a whiff of trouble in the future, they will never play for England again.

Lynda and Steve

[jwb]

If Stokes' name was Smith, the matter wouldn't even have come to trial.  There's trouble like this in every town and city every weekend, possibly every night, but it would completely clog up the courts if they all came to trial.

Our question is - why wasn't Hales charged?  Our second question is - why weren't the two gay men called as witnesses?

Stokes is a hot-head, always will be.  Stokes and Hales should be told that, should there ever be a whiff of trouble in the future, they will never play for England again

Why Hales wasn’t charged is an interesting question which the CPS/Police might have to explain at some stage. As to the missing witnesses if they were backing up Stokes story then the prosecution are never going to call them and would tender them to the prosecution. I imagine the the defence took one look and thought it was too much of a risk to let the them loose and give the prosecution a chance to backtrack.

Lynda and Steve

[Oldhasbeen]

Unlike those who are convinced  Stokes was guilty after viewing  a 30 second film clip, and reading snippets of evidence, the jury had to sit through a trial that lasted a week, consider all aspects of the case, and reach a decision.
If there was considerable doubt their deliberations could have taken days, but they reached a not guilty verdict in just two and a half hours.
With the low profile cricket has these days, it's debatable how many of the jury actually knew who he was.
So in my view Stokes was an idiot being in that situation in the first place, should not, at a later date, captain England, but has been found not guilty, and should now be considered for selection.

Good summary, Perov.
I wonder how many of those who have decided Stokes was guilty, regardless of what the jury found, have ever done jury service on cases lasting several days, where jurors sway one way and another as new evidence is presented? Or have made the slightest attempt to find out what "affray" is legally? For the latter, here's a lawyer's non-technical explanation

http://www.keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk/affray-outside-off-stump-explaining-ben-stokes-charges-/

Stoke IS, however, guilty of being completely irresponsible, hot headed and acting like an idiot. Not fit to be England VC.

[Andy]

Oldhasbeen, excellent link - I didn't understand Dan Roan's BBC Sport explanation, but it is clear to me now that the accused were being tried not on the basis of whether they hurt each other but whether they would put an innocent bystander at risk.  Seems strange to me that someone can break the eye socket of another and not be charged.   But, as has been noted above, this is probably a case of natural justice being (one gets injured but recovers, the other is hammered in the media) which is perhaps the convenient way out. 

Whether Stokes got unfavourable, I'm not sure, but I certainly think that naming him in the 3rd Test squad is wrong.  The ECB is seemingly debating to bring their own charges in, so we are in the same situation as per the selection of the Ashes tour squad last year when Stokes wasn't picked because there was no agreed date/charge at that point. Personally, I feel that the ECB should get their business finished, Stokes take a bit of a break or at least return right at the end of this India series (if at all). 

Cricketing-wise, I would be loathed to pick Stokes now because:

1. Fortunately this is a poor India Test side, for whom the wheels are coming off.
2. We need to introduce more players and a weak opposition will be useful - Curran is seen as a future player, and both he and Woakes did little wrong in the Test and should not be dropped.
3. Broad would have been most likely to be replaced by Stokes, but his once a test series performance came conveniently for him - and neither he nor Anderson would want to miss out on easy wickets.  So unless injured, both should play.
4. Indeed, the ECB (Ed Smith) made such a 'bold' decision in picking Rashid, they can't really drop him either - although it might be convenient to do so to get Stokes back. Our current four seamers are able to do the job, plus I always feel a spinner provides variety as well as a rest for the seamers.
5. Leave the bowling alone for the moment, it is the top order batting that worries me. Buttler hasn't made many runs I know but unless Stokes is batting in the top order, dropping Buttler for him wouldn't address the top order issue.
6. It sends a good message - otherwise it appears that Stokes has a god-given right to a place in the team. This episode might cause him to grow up anyway and I can see Stokes becoming another Ego in the side otherwise.

[Andy]

Well, seems we're so desperate to pick Stokes that we drop a newcomer after two promising performances. Shameful.

[stewyww]

Well, seems we're so desperate to pick Stokes that we drop a newcomer after two promising performances. Shameful.

Totally and utterly agree with you. Appalling decision and can't say I want him to do well in the game either.

[bwildered]

Stokes to replace Curran for the third test .
If you cannot play a young allrounder who has done little wrong in a test side that is two nil up, guess you never can .

[essexfan548]

Yes, I'm very disappointed for Sam Curran who seems the sort of young man England should have in the team.