That doesn't correlate with cricinfo stats. 101 innings. 18 50's. 8 100's. That's 1 in 4. Interestingly, he's scored 0 12 times (approx. 12 percent of all innings). That feels quite high for me. Especially when he's in the middle of the innings and should be facing an older ball and more tired bowlers. (Just checked and Botham only got 14 in 161 innings). I don't think he's more inclined to take risks because he's with the lower order. It's just how he bats generally, maybe because of lack of stamina too. He has made a concerted effort in more recent times to try and be more Collingwood esque. So at least he's going less Jason Roy than more and in this dreadful batting line up, i'll give him some recognition for at least trying to halt the worst parts of his game. I certainly don't think he's outstanding though. If he was serious, he'd give up the fags so he didn't blow out of his arse every time he runs 2, and I genuinely can't think of a worse option as Captain. Mavericks have never made good captains ever. Botham, Flintoff and Pietersen are prime examples of that.
I tried this the other day, it's not going to work. There's only about 50 people who have a test average of over 50, all-time, ever, of anyone whose played more than 20 games. Unless you're in that club, you're no good. There's no point arguing, he's not going to change his mind because the stats don't lie, Stokes isn't better than Lara, so he's mentally weak and obviously crap.
My calculation was based on 55 matches, not 101 innings. But in any event, a 50 every 4 innings, or every 3 matches, is on a par with the best batsmen in cricket history. As Plankton Pete pointed out, even Sachin Tendulkar has a record only marginally better than Stokes'. Cricket is unusual as a sport in that it has a myriad of stats to measure performance, and they are easily available to all of us. I think the stats confirm that he's a top player, and I'm not in a minority with that view.
There have been 4 not outs from the 101 innings he's faced, so you can discount those from the failures stat. So 26 times out of 97 innings he's passed 50. His Test economy rate is a mere 3.33 too. Certainly not wayward as described in this thread. There is such a thing as a wrong opinion too - someone is trying to wriggle out of been proven wrong by playing the old "well that's my opinion, and I'm sticking it it" card. If I said to you that in my opinion Dave Regis is was a better player than Maradona, then that would be wrong. You can't defend it by saying "well in my opinion Regis was better". Steve Waugh has more Test Match ducks than Steve Harmison. If you said in my opinion Harmison was a better batter because he has less ducks. You'd simply be wrong. Just like you are about Stokes.
Out of interest, how should the stats be interpreted? For example, Stokes has 1 double century, 8 centuries and 18 fifties. Do the 8 centuries and the 200 count as fifties too? If so, he would have 27 fifties. Not sure how to interpret it, but by any standards he's a top, top player.
Sorry I should have said completed innings. He's made 18 50s and 8 centuries. So that means that he's made 26 half centuries, and in 8 of those he's gone on to reach three figures. One of those 8 was in incredible innings at Cape Town. Usually, the mark of an absolute world class batsman is that they have a 50 percent conversion rate. Smith for example is around 25 fifties and 25 centuries (I believe)
Steve Waugh, now you’re talking a proper all rounder. Ah, so you’re playing populism as a card now, really? *wink* Stokes is an overrated player who had his luck and his day yesterday. I find it amazing people can’t see that. That’s my view. I think his record highlights how average he is. I think his failures and stupid dismissals highlight that too. We’re in one of the poorest cycles of test players ever. Sadly we can’t see him face great bowlers, nor to bowl at great batsmen. And his stats are still poor to average taking that into account. If you want to think you’re right, crack on. Meanwhile, I know you’re not ;-)
Thanks, that's clear now. So that means he scores at least 50 once every 2.1 matches, and at least 100 once every 6.9 matches. He's better than I thought
The bowling looked better than it was on Thursday from Archer and Broad restricting Australia to 179. However, those balls that were whistling past the edge would have been wicket balls if the bowlers had pitched the ball up just that tad more. So whilst it looks great beating the edge a dot ball is as good as it gets.
World class batsmen? Oh come on, you’re having a giggle now. World class batsmen average 50. If that’s the measure you’re going to use of a batsmen? But this is the thing, you’ll say he’s an all rounder, to mean you can’t judge him just as a batsman. Then you look at his bowling and that’s average too. So you can’t class him as a great batsmen, nor a great bowler, so he’s just another modern bits and pieces cricketer who gets by because the genre is so poor.
The genre of opening batsmen is poor. You only have to look at the number of partners Cook had before retirement.
You've missed my point. I said a conversion rate - the number of times a batsman converts a 50 into a 100. Steve Smith has 25 scores of fifty or more and 25 scores of a hundred or more. Hence his conversion rate is 50 percent. Stokes has 8 hundred and 18 fifties - a conversion rate of around 30 percent. Hence he isn't a world class batsman - whereas Steve Smith is. What he is, is a very, very, very good all rounder who is capable of world class performances. Just like Botham. Just like Flintoff. Which is exactly the point you missed in your frenzy to reply. You have been proven wrong in every reply you've typed in this thread - but by saying "Well it's my opinion" you think you can get away with it. You can't. You're wrong.
England threw the ball to him during Australia's second innings because Archer was injured. He bowled 26 overs on the bounce taking a few wickets on the way to restrict them to a almost gettable total . He batted a once in a lifetime innings to win the game on the forth day to win the match. He has his off days for sure but what cricketer or sportsman/woman doesn't? to criticise him is simply small minded perfectionism. He would get in every national team wether it be T20, one day or test match. A bits and pieces cricketer ? really, really?
Apparently Anderson is fit for the fourth test at Old Trafford. Quandary. Does he come straight back in and if so at the expense of who? Personally i would drop Roy (not the temperament to be a test opener) and Buttler who has done very little to justify selection on merit. I would then look at the following 11- Burns Sibley Root Denley Stokes Bairstow Woakes Archer Broad Leach Anderson
That's a long tail by modern standards. I agree that Buttler isn't offering much and I'm struggling to justify playing him, but you really need another player in there capable of counter attacking and scoring runs with the tail. Sam Curren would be ideal, but he would be in the place of one of the specialist bowlers rather than Buttler. I really don't envy the selectors...
I know it's a tricky one. The Roy experiment has failed massively. A specialist opener is a must. Also don't see what Buttler brings to the test team of late.
Roy/Buttler is the same experiment for me. An attempt to turn two outstanding limited over players into Test players. Trouble is, I don't think either have what it takes to play Test cricket. It's a similar scenario to the Greame Hick one from years ago. Like Hick, they have all the "technical" skills you could want, but there is something missing for it to click when playing the red ball game.
Given that Smith will be back for the Aussies next week and Labuschagne will also start i believe we will need the best bowlers we have available to take them on.
Being a good limited overs batsman doesn't always mean a good test batsman. I agree that Roy has been left wanting in this series so far but will he be dropped? I'm not sure that they will.
