I can't get close to judging him as fine or world class (despite how small the pool of players is/are) and if I think of Flintoff and Botham, they were great bowlers who slogged it a bit and had modest batting averages, comparable with Stokes (though I think most of us can say Flintoff wasted his talent to a large degree and didn't have the work ethic of modern cricketers). So if Stokes' batting average is below average, then he has to be a great bowler. But he isn't that either. I think of great all rounders and they were often the best player in the team, and one discipline was better than the other. Kallis one of the all time great batsmen, even Pollock who had a comparable batting average and over 400 wickets opening the bowling. Then the glory years of Hadlee, Botham and Khan. And I think this is where averages and stats fall down because of the amount of cricket we play nowadays and the variance in styles of play and the competitors they faced at the time. There are no great bowling sides at the moment. India is probably the best, but it's not like some of the South African line ups, or Australia or the great Windies line ups. I therefore think its fair to expect higher averages batting wise to counterbalance the lesser bowling units they are facing, plus you now have lesser sides playing at test level than the in the 80s. Its impossible to take Stokes into the period of Khan, Hadlee et al and see what happens to his averages. My perception is they would all go downhill because he doesn't do enough with the ball and his technique isn't good enough to face constant excellent bowling who preyed on patience. But that can't be proven, it's subjective. That's why I think statistics are actually less helpful than may be considered at first glance. Bats also have to be taken into account too. If you gave Stokes the bats of Bothams era, would he clear the boundary as much? You certainly couldn't mishit the ball as much as they do today and hit it 90-100 metres. So if he were batting with bats that had genuine edges, would his average be as high? Would he even be selected still if he got out more cheaply? Would his performances look more like Chris Lewis (winces at the thought!) That's why I feel it's not possible to use statistics purely as the basis of comparison. As I said in another reply, if he can get up to around 300 wickets and dismantle top orders (which shouldn't be that hard for a decent bowler with the huge amount of cricket we play) and get his average over 40, and maintain his very good fielding, then there is more merit to laud But anyway, I've expressed my view as to why I don't see him as great, and I don't think there is anything further I can say to state that. I won't change my mind unless his performances merit it, but I have no issue doing that. To change my mind will take time and a continued upward curve in his outputs and decision making. Perspective and opinion should have the ability to be fluid and not fixed. And though I'm sure some will disagree with that, its something I can very much do and I'm never timid in changing my mind over time. But thanks for your comments. I respect you have a different opinion to me, and that's how it should be. That people can agree on some things, disagree on others, discuss why those differences may exist and not have to hound and be personal to browbeat people into the same way of thinking.
I'd like to see England bowl maiden overs at Smith and Lauberchagne and see how well they do when scoreboard pressure kicks in.
Stokes' batting average in test matches this year is 49. His average this year in all internationals is 55
Highlights how woeful his average must've been before doesn't it? Hopefully he can cut out the dreadful needless dismissals going forward.
Just as a counter point to that (And I think it's a pretty good post even though I disagree), when you say that Test Cricket is weaker now, I think that is incorrect. In the 80s, India and Pakistan were poor. Australia lost 3 Ashes series to an England side who were constantly battered by the Windies. South Africa essentially didn't exist. Sri Lanka were in the infancy of their Test Lifespan. New Zealand without Hadlee were poor. So I would suggest that the names you mentioned (Hadlee, Khan, Botham etc) only had to deal with one genuine world class side - admittedly one of the best of all time in the West Indies. But the rest I would question. As it stands, Kallis and Sobers are probably the greatest two all rounders of all time. Every other name mentioned in this thread have blown hot and cold, with some memorable and single handed match winning performances. But Kallis and Sobers essentially averaged 50 with the bat and 30 with the ball. I would put them above every other all rounder that's played the game. Edit: I apologise if I came across as a bit of a tool last night.
I think what England suffers with in relation to other cricketing nations is deep down we're only bothered about beating the Aussies.
For a quip to connect your hemsy fascination (mentioning him again now) with your incessant stalking days of him? Well such is your prerogative to assess how you wish. I was going for satirical, but I can understand if its close to the bone you may not see the satire.
So you don't see how you are conducting yourself on this thread as childish and having a blinkered view of someone being average and a slogger? Good work.
Highlights he's improved as a player as his career has gone on, and he is currently a very good player. Also highlights that career average isn't a fair benchmark of how good a player currently is. Of all the debates to come out of the test match, wasn't expecting one about how good Stokes is.
I have a view which i've defended irrespective of how personal people have gotten. You chose to bring up a young lad you harassed across the board for years. Why is my view of a player blinkered just because I disagree? I don't like Avocado. Am I blinkered and wrong for that too? People are allowed different opinions. Grow up and accept that.
If his arc improves, then my view will change. Naturally it would, whyever would it not and i've stated that in this thread. But I feel off the back of that one innings, hyperbole has taken over. There were some quarters questioning his position after the first innings. I'm not so fickle to judge him on one innings in 101 bad or good. He did well this innings, he rode his luck and the outcome was rare and will be remembered. He set himself and got in, something all too uncommon in this England side of the last half decade, so credit for giving himself a chance to make an impact. Some of his hitting was fairly clean, some wasn't at all and he had luck. I'm not sure why some people can't see that and consider it a fair interpretation.
I agree with most of what you post about about cricket and I'm critical of his bowling in particular. However, there are times in life that you just have to sit abck and enjoy a spectacle and a sporting rarity. It was an exciting, brilliant innings and long may Stokes batting like this continue. His first innings dismissal was a lame brain decision and I'm sure no one was kicking himself more at the time in retrospect. At the time I was as a livid as anyone but we won.
I like Ben Stokes. He's a hard working pro. sportsman that seems to have learnt from him past indiscretions. He also has that "never say die" attitude that I want from a professional cricketer. It is a strange one though as I don't think either his batting or bowling would be good enough to warrant him inclusion in the test side on their own, but the sum of their parts(with a huge added bonus being he is an outstanding fielder) make him almost irreplaceable to the current team. Does he frustrate the ******** off me sometimes? Yes! In the last test his bowling in the Aussies first innings(along with Woakes)very nearly undid all the hard work Archer and Broad put in and let them off the hook. Even as a 4th seamer, the very least you would expect is from him is to keep the pressure on. But it is a real balancing act for him. Specialist bowlers work for hours upon end perfecting their action and accuracy, and at the same time specialist batsmen face hundreds of deliveries a day in the nets. So being an all rounder, the work he puts into each discipline must half that of the specialists(again, that's without the work he obviously does on his fielding on top!), so naturally his averages are going to a good deal lower than we would all like...
Does anyone think Burns defends too many balls outside his off stump that he should be leaving and turns down too many strokes that he should be bludgeoning away for four? Reason I say this is his dismissal in the fist innings. He went to a half hearted attempt at a pull shot which had frustration written all over it. Maybe he was frustrated thinking he isn't playing enough shots.
