How T20 Cricket Made Stokes' Miracle Possible

Garfield Robinson argues that England would never have pulled off their incredible run-chase at Headingley but for the invention of the shorter format

- Garfield Robinson

In the wake of Ben Stokes’ impossible epic at Leeds, many have sung full-throated praise for Test cricket. The common sentiment is that cricket’s longest format is its finest version; that such drama and intrigue, unfolding over days until it rises to a climax, is only possible in Tests.

This is, of course, true. The other formats have provided thrilling and interesting contests – the 2019 World Cup final, for example. T20 cricket, especially, excites and entertains the crowds and is highly popular. But there is a level of nuance and substance in Tests that the other formats rarely match.

And yet, there is one question that should be asked about the finish at Leeds and Stokes’ match-winning innings: would it have been possible without T20 cricket?

The answer has to be no. The last day at Leeds would not have occurred before the emergence of the T20 game. It was T20 batting, employed in a Test match, that brought about such a heart-stopping finish.

There is an argument going around that T20 batting has spawned habits that have harmed batting in the longer formats. It is an argument that has merit, for the diminution of defensive skills have been apparent for a while.

England made 67 in the first innings at Leeds and have crumbled for embarrassingly low scores on a number of occasions recently. The last day of the Leeds Ashes Test was also the last day of the West Indies versus India Test at the Sir Vivian Richards Cricket Stadium in Antigua. India won the game when they dismissed the West Indies for a paltry 100 runs to win by an imposing 318 runs.