I don’t quite understand why so many people - former players, commentators and journalists - seem flabbergasted by England Test captain Ben Stokes calling time on his career.

Yes, it may have come as a surprise to the outside world because it seemed to happen quickly, but to Stokes this decision has probably been building for a long time.

This isn’t a player walking away after a handful of seasons. Stokes made his Test debut back in 2013 and has played well over 100 Test matches alone. Add to that one-day internationals, T20 cricket, franchise tournaments around the world, overseas tours, training camps, the pressure of captaincy and the constant scrutiny that comes with representing England, and you’re talking about someone who has spent well over a decade living the life of an elite international cricketer.

That life takes a toll, even if some of his off-field issues were self-inflicted at times.

Physically, mentally and emotionally, international sport asks more of athletes in a short space of time than most people appreciate. You spend months away from your family, you carry the expectations of a nation, and every performance is analysed from every angle.

Stokes himself said he had “lost the fight.” Once an elite athlete reaches that point, it’s incredibly difficult to come back from there. The tap doesn’t just turn off, but the drive that gets you through the endless preparation, recovery and sacrifice can.

Retirement is one of the most personal decisions an athlete will ever make. Former players can speculate. Journalists can try to connect the dots. Commentators can debate whether recent events around the England team played a part.

In the end, only Stokes truly knows why he retired. Whether it was entirely his decision or influenced by other factors doesn’t really change anything. His career is what it is.

What I did find interesting, however, was the way his retirement played out.

It certainly felt orchestrated. Bowling a long spell during the announcement, then revealing his retirement while still in the middle of the action, ensured all eyes were on him.

Then there was the decision to open the batting. England had a young opener in Emilio Gay trying to establish himself at Test level, yet the captain, who has consistently spoken about putting the team first, promoted himself instead. To me, it felt unnecessary and, if I were in that dressing room, a little disrespectful to a young player trying to cement his place.

The approach with the bat also summed up what England have become under Stokes and Brendon McCullum. The ultra-aggressive Bazball philosophy has always divided opinion, and this innings did nothing to change mine. It felt more like theatre than smart Test cricket. There were moments where a little more game awareness and accountability would have served England far better.

I’ve written before that I don’t buy into the idea that Bazball has somehow reinvented Test cricket. It has certainly created headlines and excitement for some, but ultimately the game is judged by results. Entertainment has its place, but consistently beating the best teams, home and away, is what defines great Test sides and also how you play Test cricket in those tough moments like New Zealand’s Daryl Mitchell showed.

What also made me smile was listening to some former England players after the match. Many of the same voices who have questioned Stokes, criticised Bazball or challenged the team’s approach over the past couple of years suddenly couldn’t praise him highly enough. Overnight, he became a heroic figure. That’s their right, but it also highlighted how quickly narratives can change.

What also struck me was how different Stokes’ retirement felt compared to Kane Williamson’s.

Both are individual decisions. There is no right or wrong way to retire. Some players like one final farewell in front of the cameras, while others quietly step away with little fuss. Every athlete has earned the right to choose how they leave the game.

What disappointed me was that so much of the conversation centred on Stokes that it almost overshadowed one of New Zealand’s finest overseas Test series victories.

If I’m honest, I’d rather be writing about New Zealand and their historic series comeback victory.

To lose the opening Test, regroup and then come back to win the series says everything about the character of that side. They have once again shown the cricketing world how to play Test cricket away from home. It wasn’t built on hype or words. It was built on discipline, accountability, patience and an unwavering commitment to the team.

New Zealand don’t enjoy the same financial backing as England. They don’t have the same depth of talent to choose from either. Yet time and time again, they produce teams that understand their roles, play for one another and are prepared to do the hard work that Test cricket demands.

From an Australian perspective, I certainly enjoyed the battles. I still remember the first time I played against Stokes at Adelaide Oval. We had a shoulder bump that sparked a healthy, competitive rivalry. It was aggressive, but it was played in the right spirit.

Do I think he’s England’s greatest all-rounder? No, I don’t. While I think he had some big match-winning moments, I don’t think he was a player that you were worried would dominate you consistently. But one thing I wouldn’t question was that, especially early in his career, he played to win and had that mongrel in him.

Stokes never hid from the contest. When England were under pressure, he wanted to be the man in the fight. As an opponent, those are the players you wanted to play against because you knew they could change a game.

When the dust settles, I hope this series isn’t remembered simply as Stokes’ farewell. I hope it’s remembered as the series where New Zealand reminded everyone what winning Test cricket overseas still looks like.

One team dominated the headlines. The other walked away with the result.