Curfews – What are they good for anyway?

When a curfew gets breached, who does the buck really stop with? The one who couldn't follow it or the ones who failed to police it?

Especially when it involves a bunch of adults who also happen to be professional athletes at an elite level. And more so when you've got the man who imposed the curfew embroiled right in the middle of the breach.

For all the speculation regarding Ben Stokes' future in international cricket, it's this existential dilemma around curfews that's been the lightning rod of the latest controversy gripping English cricket over the last week. As the hosts prepare to take on New Zealand in the second Test at The Oval, a strange calm has settled upon this embattled England team.

Four changes, including two debutants – and a potential third should Jamie Smith be unavailable on paternity leave – on the back of a famous Test win at Lord's, seems understated compared to the chaos the team was engulfed with until days ago.

The English top brass has taken the sensible call of leaving out Stokes and Gus Atkinson for the second Test, with Joe Root stepping in as acting captain.

But the issue feels unresolved, even as Brendon McCullum expressed concern over Stokes' well-being. The narrative has shifted from "Stokes surely cannot survive this" to "save Stokes at all costs" within a week.

There have been multiple calls for the Test captain to return once he's served his one-match suspension, or be back for the home series against Pakistan. To not walk away over what's now characterised as a minor transgression. But while Stokes trains with Durham, there's as much clarity about where his head's at as there is about why he broke the curfew at the first opportunity.

English cricket culture is on trial once again, and the world's watching. With cynicism and confusion.

An Australian cricketer reached out with an "I told you so" message to back his initial claim, "Wait and watch, they'll turn him into Sir Ben Stokes," on the day the news broke. A drive-by shot at how the English cricket ecosystem might react.

When you consider team sport, cricket has always held itself to higher moral standards than most others. Maybe it's never been able to shed its puritanical 'just not cricket' approach.

Once there was no case for Robert Key or McCullum to answer for as the ones policing professionalism, expecting Stokes to cop harsher punishment seemed out of question. You'd expect joint accountability.

Both Key and McCullum have spoken about being let down by the man they've backed. The door seems ajar but not wide open for his return, even if there's no commitment to him continuing as captain.

What feels odd is the lack of clear acknowledgement that there's a cultural issue to address. Or that the environment isn't creating enough guardrails to prevent repeated slip-ups.

The facts speak: this nightclub escapade comes close to Harry Brook's indiscretions in New Zealand and the off-field shenanigans from the Ashes tour six months ago. And that the selectors couldn't automatically hand the captaincy to the designated vice-captain because he happens to be Brook. Not to forget Key's suggestion of a complete alcohol ban for players and staff.

That brings us back to curfews and what they're good for. Whether strict measures work where adults are expected to be adults. As shown, it seems as futile as going up against a rugby team in a nightclub.