Sir Ben Stokes the GAROAT?

scotch said:
I mean, Ashwin and Jadeja have far better stats with the ball and both are very good with the bat - you just gotta factor in the pitches and conditions they played in
Click to expand...

That's still just modern times though, im more thinking about the likes of sobers, khan, dev, hadlee etc and ill be th first to tell you I'm no cricket historian!

Stokes is an incredibly fine player, im just no fan of hyperbole and declaring modern lads the greatest ever
 


Twisted said:
That's still just modern times though, im more thinking about the likes of sobers, khan, dev, hadlee etc and ill be th first to tell you I'm no cricket historian!

Stokes is an incredibly fine player, im just no fan of hyperbole and declaring modern lads the greatest ever
Click to expand...
Imran pisses all owa Stokes like.

Stokes 197 test wickets @ 32
Imran 362 @ 22
 
Twisted said:
That's still just modern times though, im more thinking about the likes of sobers, khan, dev, hadlee etc and ill be th first to tell you I'm no cricket historian!

Stokes is an incredibly fine player, im just no fan of hyperbole and declaring modern lads the greatest ever
Click to expand...
Same applies with those mentioned, pitches were harder to bat on but easier to bowl on
 
Ian Stokes isn’t the greatest. Neither is Ben Botham. They are England’s greatest, though.

Internationally, Kallis, Khan, Sobers, etc were better.

But Stokes is a big game player - the type we aren’t used to in this country - and on his day is the most destructive I’ve ever seen.
 
Tin hat on I was quite shocked when the commentators said its only his 4th ODI hundred, Capable of the spectacular without doubt which few can match but lacks a bit of consistency for me to be considered the greatest
 
Binxy said:
Imran pisses all owa Stokes like.

Stokes 197 test wickets @ 32
Imran 362 @ 22
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely right with that comparison as a bowler. Khan was a selfish cricketer, batted low and probably had a shed loads of ‘not outs’ as a batsman to boost his average. Also in my opinion, the standard of the International cricketer is way above what it was in the 80’s. This makes it harder for players of today to excel
 
SuperK said:
You’re absolutely right with that comparison as a bowler. Khan was a selfish cricketer, batted low and probably had a shed loads of ‘not outs’ as a batsman to boost his average. Also in my opinion, the standard of the International cricketer is way above what it was in the 80’s. This makes it harder for players of today to excel
Click to expand...

Was interested after reading this. Taking NOs out of the equation batting averages are stokes 34, imran 30
 
Folk still using averages as the ultimate measure of a player. They clearly don't know much about top-level competitive cricket.

How many times, for example, has Stokes sacrificed bowling averages to act as the attack enforcer by bowling half-trackers or extended spells?

Yes, Kallis was a phenomenal player. Probably the best all-rounder of my lifetime, and perhaps the best of all-time, bar Sobers. But "far, far better" than Stokes?

Even Kallis's stats were boosted by playing 12 Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (while Stokes has played Bangladesh twice and Zimbabwe not at all).

55 of Stokes' 97 Tests have come against Australia, South Africa and India. Just 78 of Kallis's 166 came against the Aussies, India and us.

Plus, although Kallis' record against India is astonishing, they weren't a dominant side for anything but around two years of his Test career.

Again, I'm not diminishing Kallis. His record against a generally all-conquering Aussie side was ridiculous. But Stokes isn't far behind him when you take his ability to perform on the biggest occasions into account, along with his captaincy (I'd argue that utterly transforming a team that was, arguably along with Test cricket altogether, dead on its feet should be factored into where he is rated as an "all-rounder").
 
The greatest match winner I've seen. Kallis had better numbers and I'm sure you can make an argument for Botham, and Sobers' numbers are ridiculous. But based on match winning performances I'd have him top ahead of IT Botham (who was of course also brilliant). I didn't see enough of Kallis, tbf and Sobers was well before my time. Plus his captaincy is superb.
 
fazza1970 said:
Folk still using averages as the ultimate measure of a player. They clearly don't know much about top-level competitive cricket.

How many times, for example, has Stokes sacrificed bowling averages to act as the attack enforcer by bowling half-trackers or extended spells?

Yes, Kallis was a phenomenal player. Probably the best all-rounder of my lifetime, and perhaps the best of all-time, bar Sobers. But "far, far better" than Stokes?

Even Kallis's stats were boosted by playing 12 Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (while Stokes has played Bangladesh twice and Zimbabwe not at all).

55 of Stokes' 97 Tests have come against Australia, South Africa and India. Just 78 of Kallis's 166 came against the Aussies, India and us.

Plus, although Kallis' record against India is astonishing, they weren't a dominant side for anything but around two years of his Test career.

Again, I'm not diminishing Kallis. His record against a generally all-conquering Aussie side was ridiculous. But Stokes isn't far behind him when you take his ability to perform on the biggest occasions into account, along with his captaincy (I'd argue that utterly transforming a team that was, arguably along with Test cricket altogether, dead on its feet should be factored into where he is rated as an "all-rounder").
Click to expand...

Kallis really suffers in the all rounder category because he didn’t have the personality on or off the park that transcends. The majority of the great all rounders have been charismatic, big characters capable of doing the extraordinary on the park. Often been quite colourful off it as well.

I think Stokes is every bit as talented as Jacques Kallis though. His raw numbers may not measure up to Kallis but his influence on games, series and tournaments more than compensate for that. And I’d pay to watch Stokes before Kallis every day of the week and twice on Sundays
 
Last edited:
Sea to Shining Sea said:
I think Stokes is every bit as talented as Jacques Kallis though. His raw numbers may not measure up to Kallis but his influence on games, series and tournaments more than compensate for that. And I’d pay to watch Stokes before Kallis every day of the week and twice on Sundays
Click to expand...

I suspect if you were South African you might feel different ;)
 
Twisted said:
I suspect if you were South African you might feel different ;)
Click to expand...

Possibly! But this thread got me having a read about him. There’s a canny interview with him a few year back with Wisden and it seems that he never really got much love even there. Perceptions of being selfish and dull (often unfairly) meant he was never taken to peoples hearts like Botham, Flintoff and Stokes here.
 
Anyone remember the all rounder challenge on TV in the 1980s? Botham, Kapil Dev, Hadlee, Imran Khan and Clive Rice spring to mind as competing. I also remember Clive Rice always winning even though I didn’t know who he was at the time.
 
I still think Botham is right up there for me, between 77-82 he was untouchable and won games with bat and ball regularly. Had he not gone on with a chronic back injury, loss of form and playing in a poor side on/off for the next 10 years, he would have likely finished with a batting average of 40 and a bowling average of 23-25, which would have been remarkable given the amount of runs scored and wickets taken. He was a superb fielder and a complete entertainer - the last English cricketer to dominate the front pages.

Stokes has the ability to play unbelievable innings under the highest pressure and could easily play as a top order batsman only, but his bowling has never been close to that of Botham's IMO.
 
The Breen Machine said:
Stokes has the ability to play unbelievable innings under the highest pressure and could easily play as a top order batsman only, but his bowling has never been close to that of Botham's IMO.
Click to expand...
Does anyone think stokes would get into the england team if he was a rabbit with the bat? Obviously fitness would make that argument redundant generally but even when fully fit i can't really see it and to me thats the mark of the very best all rounders - if they couldn't bowl they'd get in as a bat only and if they batted 11 they'd still get picked
 

Back
Top