I imagine there were some difference between he two field. Different crop maturities, soil compositions, waterlogging. Given that many areas within the damaged field are undamged, then if it were due to wind, then the difference between the two fields could still be pretty marginal.
There's the obvious color difference in your first photo, just much less apparent here.
The point is there are hundreds of possible explanation, without going to the practically imposible one of wind that only affects one field. A difference in the fields is simply the most plausible explanation.
Do you have any photos of what those fields looked like before the storm? Without before pictures nobody can say whether or not the storm had anything to do with it.
In many parts of the world farmers let livestock graze on crops after harvest, such as cotton fields in India and rice paddys in Thailand. Perhaps this particular farmer had just started that process when the storm hit.
An old dog run that I let get out of hand last year had a similar appearance after a couple of days of grazing by two hungry goats. It took nearly two weeks for them to finish the job.
The wind has bent some of the plants that are weakened by the high nitrogen content in the soil. Because of the abundance of nutrients in the peat, it is not very suitable for growing wheat and barley. However, the field crop rotation is required from time to time.