Stokes and alcohol give England another headache

Stokes has history here - lots of it, starting with being sent home from an England Lions tour in 2013 for too much boozing.

The incident outside a Bristol nightclub in 2017 almost cost him his England career. Charged and eventually cleared of affray, he explained he was acting to defend to members of the public. He later revealed the ordeal had a long-lasting effect on his mental health.

In the early part of last year Stokes said he gave up alcohol to aid his recovery from a hamstring injury and invested in a non-alcoholic drinks brand.

On Sunday, straight after the win against New Zealand, he was eager to get on the sauce.

"I won't be really happy until I get to share a beer with the boys," he said in the post-match news conference.

Perhaps Stokes is a microcosm of cricket's complex relationship with alcohol, right down to a recreational game that is built on the culture of pints in the clubhouse.

Andrew Flintoff's drinking session after England won the 2005 Ashes is part of this country's sporting folklore. Australia coach Andrew McDonald suggested Travis Head had as much fun off the field as he did on it during the past Ashes in Australia.

International cricketers are often young men, away from home for months on end. The mental toll touring life can take is well documented.

Then again, there are plenty of ways to escape cricket without visiting the pub. There are countless cricketers who do not drink at all, and many more professional athletes from other sports who never touch a drop.

From a high-performance point of view, is a late-night drinking session the correct way to be in the best shape for the second Test at The Oval next week?

Australia spinner Nathan Lyon recently revealed his belief that drinking after winning the World Test Championship in 2023 contributed to his calf injury in the second Ashes Test three weeks later.

It is that second Test that leaves England with precious little time. A squad is due to be named and there is a possibility that Stokes and Atkinson are not in it.

Atkinson took seven wickets at Lord's, a successful return after a difficult Ashes. It would be a personal setback to surrender his place, but England have the fast-bowling stocks to cover for him. Jofra Archer could return.

Stokes' absence is much more problematic. In that scenario, could England really pass the captaincy on to Brook? How could one captain not be in charge because of a nightclub incident, with the replacement less than a year on from a nightclub incident of his own?

This is the dilemma facing McCullum, Key, ECB chief executive Richard Gould and chair Richard Thompson. They are a group so tightly bound together that this latest fiasco could bring the whole house down.

The ECB top brass reviewed the Ashes, on and off the field, and decided there was no need to change the management structure. At the first time of asking, they have been embarrassed, calling their judgement into question.

All those above Stokes have a right to be angry he has let them down, yet they all must share in the blame for creating an environment where Stokes thought it was OK to break the rules.

"Informal" was McCullum's description of his operation. He may be regretting the informality, even if he regularly drums home a message that "nothing good happens after midnight".

So, the decision.

Is a late night in London enough to cost Stokes the England captaincy? Might he feel that his position is untenable? Could the ECB decide enough is enough, and no man - not even Ben Stokes - is above the health of the England team and the reputation of the game?

Or is being in the wrong place at the very wrong time not enough to bring down one of the best players to have ever pulled on an England shirt?

It is a time for clear heads. Not many of those are found near the bar in the early hours.