Vaughan opposes Stokes's removal as Test captain despite nightclub incident

KARACHI: Former cricketer Michael Vaughan on Wednesday asserted all-rounder Ben Stokes should not be sacked as England Test captain for breaking the team's curfew after their first Test of the three-match home series against New Zealand.

Stokes, who, alongside Gus Atkinson, was left out of England's 15-member squad for the subsequent Test against New Zealand earlier today, faces an uncertain future as the ECB has granted him time to consider his options following an alleged altercation with Saracens Rugby player Totoa Auvaa at a nightclub.

While the ECB is expected to take disciplinary action against both players for violating team protocol, officials are also keen to allow Stokes to reach his own decision regarding his future.

Whereas, international media reported that Stokes was set to meet his advisers today to determine his future amid growing speculation that he could retire from international cricket altogether.

However, Vaughan, who represented England in 82 Tests, 86 ODIs and two T20Is, dismissed the violation of the team's curfew as a sacking offence, while highlighting the 35-year-old's services both as captain and all-rounder.

"Yes, Ben Stokes broke a curfew. Yes, he made a mistake. But is that a sacking offence as England's Test captain? I do not think so," Vaughan wrote in the Daily Telegraph.

"Stokes has a lot of credit in the bank for all he has done for England as captain and all-rounder. There is no way that those making the big decisions at the England and Wales Cricket Board have the same credit in the bank," he added.

The former opening batter also advised the ECB to be "brave enough and strong enough" to make decisions, while reiterating his disapproval of Stokes's removal as the captain.

"We are now at the stage that they either put their necks on the block and say, 'Right, we are sacking you for that offence', or they back him and move on," Vaughan continued.

"The ECB is hoping Stokes makes a decision on its behalf. But it has to be brave enough and strong enough to do what it thinks is right. If that is to sack him then fine, but I do not agree with that decision on this issue."

Vaughan instead termed a short suspension as a viable option in Stokes's case while acknowledging his involvement in the Bristol incident 10 years ago.

"A short suspension would be fine, but this is not a big enough incident over which to lose the captaincy. I know he was involved in the Bristol incident, but that was nearly 10 years ago and I do not remember him getting in a pickle since then," Vaughan suggested.

"With that in mind, I do not see how you can tell Stokes he is not captain anymore just for going over the curfew by a couple of hours after a win."

Michael Vaughan then went on to dismiss the notion that Stokes would lose respect in the dressing room due to the nightclub incident or breaking the team's curfew by citing the example of white-ball captain Harry Brook, who was backed by fellow England players ahead of the ICC Men's T20 World Cup earlier this year.

"I also do not buy the fact he will have lost respect in the dressing room or will struggle to impose authority in the future. Did Harry Brook, as white-ball captain, lose the respect of his players after the Wellington incident?" Vaughan questioned.

"No. In fact, England were telling us how well he had bounced back and captained at the Twenty20 World Cup."