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").
