Ben Stokes has Sir Ian Botham's aura, says Nasser Hussain

[AssassinatedDevil]

Nasser Hussain says Ben Stokes has an "aura" akin to Sir Ian Botham and Shane Warne - and is the most important part of England's one-day side.

Stokes was named Man of the Match in his just his second game back for England since he was arrested outside a nightclub in Bristol in September and subsequently charged with affray.

The all-rounder scored an unbeaten 63 from 74 deliveries as Eoin Morgan's side levelled the five-match ODI series against New Zealand with a six-wicket win in the second encounter at Bay Oval.

Sky Cricket expert Hussain says Stokes must now forget missing the Ashes and the fact the Bristol incident will "define" his career and focus on becoming an "even better" cricketer and person.

"Some people keep you in games and others change them - Stokes is the latter.

"There were some good cricketers in the T20 Tri-Series series for England but none with real aura where you walk in and think: 'He's there', like Ian Botham, Shane Warne and Brian Lara had.

"Stokes is falling into that category and Morgan will be very pleased to have that cricketer. The most important part of this very good one-day side is Stokes' aura and character.

"It's incredible that he gets Man of the Match in his second game back - that's the impact cricketer he is and why people are bending over backwards and spending a lot of dollar getting him across to the IPL.

"These two games are probably the only two times in the last five months he hasn't been thinking about that incident in Bristol.

"When you're out on a cricket field, you just think about playing cricket - that's his job, what he was brought up to do and what he loves doing.

"He hasn't gone into the Beefy bat-cave and cocooned himself away - he has been out and about, having breakfast away from the hotel with a couple of team-mates, playing a bit of golf, been fishing.

"If you didn't know what had happened in Bristol, you wouldn't assume there was any difference.

"This period has been hugely difficult for him as he is a team man through and through - I've never heard one bad word said against him from a team-mate.

"I don't want to get into the rights and wrong about it but he was sat at home watching his team-mates perform badly in the most high-profile series there can be for an England cricketer - the Ashes.

"He must have felt he was letting them down - Ben and Trevor Bayliss are inseparable and even Bayliss said he had let them down.

"Ben would have been thinking Bristol was a sliding-doors moment - 'if I turned right instead of turning left, could I have been out there winning the Ashes?'

"He will be remembered for that for the rest of his career - that will define him and he will be reminded about it on the boundary, but he now has to put that behind him. It's gone, it's done and dusted.

"Sometimes in life it's not about what happens to you but how you react that's important - he has come out here and taken in on the chin.

"Ricky Ponting turned his life around, David Warner turned his life around [after off-field incidents] - and they are pretty good cricketers.

"Stokes has to look at it the same way and say: 'I can become an even better cricketer and, more importantly, an even better person'."

http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...-of-sir-ian-botham-shane-warne-and-brian-lara

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Mamoon]

Undoubtedly the finest all-rounder of the millennia so far. He is better than Flintoff, Cairns, Afridi, Shakib and Watson, and I think he is better than Klusener as well.

People would obviously single out Kallis but over the last decade or so, he has had no impact with the ball. An ATG batsman though, but not a high impact all-rounder.

Stokes is a genuine game-changer, and apart from Pandya, I do not see anyone giving him stiff competition. Sensational cricketer.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Undoubtedly the finest all-rounder of the millennia so far. He is better than Flintoff, Cairns, Afridi, Shakib and Watson, and I think he is better than Klusener as well.

People would obviously single out Kallis but over the last decade or so, he has had no impact with the ball. An ATG batsman though, but not a high impact all-rounder.

Stokes is a genuine game-changer, and apart from Pandya, I do not see anyone giving him stiff competition. Sensational cricketer.

Man only you just said that Klusner/Kallis/Watson (tried and tested game winners) ain't nothing but Pandya is the next big thang.

Bro you more patriotic than Nehru himself

All said, Afridi > Stokes+Pandya combined

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Nasser is getting a bit emotional IMO.

To be able to compared to likes of Botham/Hadlee or Dev, Stokes must perform for a decade.

 

[Mamoon]

Man only you just said that Klusner/Kallis/Watson (tried and tested game winners) ain't nothing but Pandya is the next big thang.

Bro you more patriotic than Nehru himself

All said, Afridi > Stokes+Pandya combined

Pandya's potential is scary. He can go very, very far in his career. His ceiling is certainly higher than the likes of Watson and Afridi. Kallis is a completely different breed because he was an ATG batsman who could do a job with the ball.

Afridi better than Stokes? He is not even good enough to tie his shoelaces. Stokes is leagues above Afridi.

Afridi is similar to someone like Maxwell, but a far better bowler and a far inferior batsman.

 

[Mamoon]

Nasser is getting a bit emotional IMO.

To be able to compared to likes of Botham/Hadlee or Dev, Stokes must perform for a decade.

He is right. Stokes has that aura in his game, but obviously to be considered at their level he has to maintain his performance for many years. If he retires today, he will not be considered in their class, but does he have the ability to surpass them? Absolutely.

 

[Madplayer]

Nasser sahab jazbaati hogaye.

Stokes is good with the bat but he is above average with the ball. If that wasn't bad enough, he is one of the biggest chokers with the ball in modern day era and already has a couple of classic examples of choking under pressure associated with him.

I am not going to talk about his off field violent personality because that has nothing to with cricket but as a cricketer he has a long way to go to be mentioned in the same sentence as Botham.

Lol at the mention of Pandya and his potential. Pandya is far inferior to even Stokes. That 90 odd he made in SA has blinded people. Azhar Mahmood has 2 centuries in SA. Even in LOIs he has been in atrocious form off late. Seems confused about what to do at the crease. Not saying he would stay like this but he surely has temperament issues, always tries to blast his way out of a situation ALA Afridi. I have maintained it from the beginning, whenever Pandya has to bat with a top order batsman in any half decent bowling conditions, he will find it extremely tough. With tail enders he can try to slog and score a few quick runs because he has nothing to lose. He is good at that. However, while batting with a top order batsman, he cant really go out all guns blazing and thats where he will struggle. He doesnt have it in him to grind out a innings in tough conditions.

Now coming to Faheem Ashraf who is basically a nobody at the moment. I haven't followed Pandya's domestic career, but Faheem has played innings in domestic recently where he looked to stay at the wicket. This shows that at least he is willing to improve his temprament. Faheem is also a gifted hitter like Pandya, clearly not as good as Pandya at this stage but ingredients are there. He will have to work very hard to be able to get to a level where people across the cricketing world start talking about him. And to be honest i see an upward curve in his career. He is quietly going about his business thus far and it wont surprise me if he becomes a household name in 1 year's time.

 

[Slog]

Pandya's potential is scary. He can go very, very far in his career. His ceiling is certainly higher than the likes of Watson and Afridi. Kallis is a completely different breed because he was an ATG batsman who could do a job with the ball.

Afridi better than Stokes? He is not even good enough to tie his shoelaces. Stokes is leagues above Afridi.

Afridi is similar to someone like Maxwell, but a far better bowler and a far inferior batsman.

Pandya's potential is scary?

His bowling is very ordinary and he will struggle to get to Abdul Razzaq level (in limited overs) in that aspect let alone others.

Batting wise he is a hitter of supreme ability but his all round batting is again lacking..

I'll give in that he has heart and a good attitude so he most likely won't fade away and have incremental improvements with experience. But you are living in some fantasy world if you think he will be in Stokes territory

 

[AMSS]

Botham himself has the distinct aura of a slowpoke so I think Nasser is being sly with this comparison.

 

[barah_admi]

The ODI side did just as well without stokes so dunno about that but his lower order hitting really helps England. HIs bowling is still way way off Both or Freddie standards and getting the odd decent spell isn't good enough. But yes, he is a good player to have in the side but unless he actually shows he can bowl, I can't rate him close to England's best.

 

[introvert]

as a batsman stokes is very natural timer of the ball and free flowing strokemaker with lots of power like yuvraj .His batting technique is well organized and doesn't have any major flow.judging by his batting talent he should avrage between 40 to 45.

as a bowler he needs lots of improvement. his control is still 50:50 due to that he bowls lots of "hit me" balls in every match.His economy rate above 6 made his bowling average worse.

 

[AMSS]

Botham, if I recall correctly, was among the quickest to reach to the 100 wickets in test. He was a frontline pacer for Engerlund. Stokes is not and doesn't look close to bridging that gap in quality in future either. Stokes does have a very sorted batting technique for the position he bats at.

What I am getting at is that Stokes is closer to Pandya in terms of potential and class than Botham. Nasser being sly as i suggested above.

 

[Mr.Q]

No doubt he's a very good batsman. But aura? Over excited Englishmen and their choice of words lol. As a batsman I rate Shane Watson much higher tbh. But even then the comparison between Stokes and Pandya looks silly at this point. I feel Pandya is very overrated. He still has a lot to prove to be considered as top level allrounder. One good knock here and there or a few good spells in a series isn't much to talk about.

Nasser sahab jazbaati hogaye.

.......

Now coming to Faheem Ashraf who is basically a nobody at the moment. I haven't followed Pandya's domestic career, but Faheem has played innings in domestic recently where he looked to stay at the wicket. This shows that at least he is willing to improve his temprament. Faheem is also a gifted hitter like Pandya, clearly not as good as Pandya at this stage but ingredients are there. He will have to work very hard to be able to get to a level where people across the cricketing world start talking about him. And to be honest i see an upward curve in his career. He is quietly going about his business thus far and it wont surprise me if he becomes a household name in 1 year's time.

Unless he starts a home appliances company or something like that, I don't see that happening )

 

[Madplayer]

Unless he starts a home appliances company or something like that, I don't see that happening )

Would be nice if you elaborate this very funny thing which you said.

 

[Mr.Q]

Would be nice if you elaborate this very funny thing which you said.

I just don't see the kinda potential you see.

 

[Madplayer]

I just don't see the kinda potential you see.

Maybe i should have been a bit clear. What i meant to say was that he can become a household name in Pakistan if he keeps improving the way he is right now. He has shown willingness to improve his batting and not become a total hack. I believe he is not an anwar ali or bilawal bhatti kind of player who comes and goes.

 

[Robert]

Nasser is getting a bit emotional IMO.

To be able to compared to likes of Botham/Hadlee or Dev, Stokes must perform for a decade.

Not what Nasser said.

He was talking about that aura or energy that some players have which lifts the team.

 

[Madplayer]

Not what Nasser said.

He was talking about that aura or energy that some players have which lifts the team.

Nice. Can we say Yasir shah has the aura of Botham too?

 

[Savage]

No doubt he's a very good batsman. But aura? Over excited Englishmen and their choice of words lol. As a batsman I rate Shane Watson much higher tbh. But even then the comparison between Stokes and Pandya looks silly at this point. I feel Pandya is very overrated. He still has a lot to prove to be considered as top level allrounder. One good knock here and there or a few good spells in a series isn't much to talk about.

Stokes does have a great aura.He is arguably biggest Matchwinner/Gamechanger in the world.

 

[Madplayer]

Stokes does have an aura.He is arguably biggest Matchwinner/Gamechanger in the world.

True. The way he changed the game in world t20 final was incredible.

On a serious note, when has he changed the game (in favour of his own team ) ? Would love to know it.
A game changing innings in ODIs would be a 50 from 25 balls when it is actually needed. Or scoring a 100 when the team is 30-4. With the ball it can be picking up 3 wickets in one short spell when the opposition is like 100-1.

Simple 100s and 50s dont cut it. Virat kohli scores 100s for fun. And he is clearly the biggest match winner in the world. Game changing performances are those which come when there is lesser chance of your team to win.

 

[Savage]

True. The way he changed the game in world t20 final was incredible.

On a serious note, when has he changed the game (in favour of his own team ) ? Would love to know it.
A game changing innings in ODIs would be a 50 from 25 balls when it is actually needed. Or scoring a 100 when the team is 30-4. With the ball it can be picking up 3 wickets in one short spell when the opposition is like 100-1.

Simple 100s and 50s dont cut it. Virat kohli scores 100s for fun. And he is clearly the biggest match winner in the world. Game changing performances are those which come when there is lesser chance of your team to win.

As expected you brought up last T20 WC final.His performance in T20s international been poor.But I'm more interested in Tests and Odi's where he has played majority of games

 

[Hasan123]

Stokes is one of the biggest match winners in the game today. Also his passion and intensity in the field makes for great viewing at time. A potential legendary cricketer in the making.

 

[Madplayer]

As expected you brought up last T20 WC final.His performance in T20s international been poor.But I'm more interested in Tests and Odi's where he has played majority of games

I was kidding. But Please mention some game changing performances by him in ODIs or tests, which were truly game changing in true sense of these words.

Not saying he isnt the best allrounder in the world today. Unfortunately he is. But he is over rated by a lot of people.

 

[Mr.Q]

Stokes does have a great aura.He is arguably biggest Matchwinner/Gamechanger in the world.

He's a very good player. But the word aura is something you associate with great players. In my book he isn't 'great' yet as a batsman or a bowler. And I'm not saying this based on the stat (which I know doesn't reflect the hype he gets one bit). I'm just saying it based on what I saw. He's a naturally aggressive batsman and is quite exciting to watch when he gets going, especially in T20s. Best allrounder out there yes. Potential ATG? yes. Has the aura? No. Maybe I'm failing to see something you are seeing in him.

 

[Mr.Q]

Maybe i should have been a bit clear. What i meant to say was that he can become a household name in Pakistan if he keeps improving the way he is right now. He has shown willingness to improve his batting and not become a total hack. I believe he is not an anwar ali or bilawal bhatti kind of player who comes and goes.

Alrighty. He's already quite popular in Pakistan isn't he?

 

[Savage]

I was kidding. But Please mention some game changing performances by him in ODIs or tests, which were truly game changing in true sense of these words.

Not saying he isnt the best allrounder in the world today. Unfortunately he is. But he is over rated by a lot of people.

Who was England's best Test player when England last toured India,Bangladesh,South Africa and Australia(2013 not 2017-18).

IN ODIs,Stokes performance in India where he singlehandedly won an Odi match for his team and CT match against Australia when England were in trouble with 35-3 chasing 270 odd.He still has a lot to prove in ODIs/T20s but I'm sure he will be very good player across all formats.

 

[Mercurial]

Pandya's potential is scary. He can go very, very far in his career. His ceiling is certainly higher than the likes of Watson and Afridi. Kallis is a completely different breed because he was an ATG batsman who could do a job with the ball.

Afridi better than Stokes? He is not even good enough to tie his shoelaces. Stokes is leagues above Afridi.

Afridi is similar to someone like Maxwell, but a far better bowler and a far inferior batsman.

Afridi is way better than Stokes in T20I cricket.

 

[Savage]

He's a very good player. But the word aura is something you associate with great players. In my book he isn't 'great' yet as a batsman or a bowler. And I'm not saying this based on the stat (which I know doesn't reflect the hype he gets one bit). I'm just saying it based on what I saw. He's a naturally aggressive batsman and is quite exciting to watch when he gets going, especially in T20s. Best allrounder out there yes. Potential ATG? yes. Has the aura? No. Maybe I'm failing to see something you are seeing in him.

He is a special player and yes he does have a great Aura.Even though he doesn't look like a great bowler but he does have a knack of picking up wickets of good batsmen at a crucial stage.

 

[King Kong]

Lol at the mention of Pandya and his potential. Pandya is far inferior to even Stokes. That 90 odd he made in SA has blinded people. Azhar Mahmood has 2 centuries in SA. Even in LOIs he has been in atrocious form off late. Seems confused about what to do at the crease. Not saying he would stay like this but he surely has temperament issues, always tries to blast his way out of a situation ALA Afridi. I have maintained it from the beginning, whenever Pandya has to bat with a top order batsman in any half decent bowling conditions, he will find it extremely tough. With tail enders he can try to slog and score a few quick runs because he has nothing to lose. He is good at that. However, while batting with a top order batsman, he cant really go out all guns blazing and thats where he will struggle. He doesnt have it in him to grind out a innings in tough conditions.

Don't come up with these ridiculous statements. It's very clear that you started tracking down Pandya's performances only since South Africa tour.

1. In the first ODI against Australia, India were tottering at 87/5 when Pandya came out to Bat. Formed a big partnership with Dhoni and ended up with 83(66) and also took two wickets in the second innings. Single handedly won the match against a quality team.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17974/scorecard/1119496/india-vs-australia-1st-odi/

2. In the 3rd odi, he was sent up the order chasing 294 against Australia, played a very sensible innings of 78(72).

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17974/scorecard/1119498/india-vs-australia-3rd-odi/

3. Similar to 3rd odi, he was given the responsibility to bat up again in the 4th odi and scored 41(40).

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17974/scorecard/1119499/india-vs-australia-4th-odi/

These along with some crucial wickets he took in the second and final ODIs made him adjudged as the Man of the Tournament for allround performance against AUSTRALIA.
Even during South Africa tour, he showed a few glimpses with the bat and contributed to India's success in one way or other. Stop putting Pandya down. He is a great talent and has the right attitude to become a successful player.

 

[jnaveen1980]

stokes is closer to a specialist batsman than Pandya is. Ofcourse Stokes is going to deliver better. Pandya has to cover lot of areas in his batting to get closer to becoming a specialist batsman. A genuine all rounder should be able to qualify purely as a batsman or a bowler. Rightnow Pandya is short of it. Stokes if not bowling will definitely qualify purely as a batsman. No comparison at this point. Pandya could go either way. Lose form and disappear or gain form and get even stronger. We have to wait and watch. Irfan pathan was more technically sound compared to Pandya now. But his bowling fell way off. Pandya hasn't even achieved what Irfan achieved with his bowling. Irfan won us Perth Test, helped with Pakistan series win in Pakistan alongwith Balaji, T20 world fup final win. He simply ran through Zimbabwe in Two tests. Also ran through BD in the first Test. Who can forget that hatrick. Staved off Mcgrath, Gillespie, Warne for 4 hours while making 55 in a test match.

 

[WengerOut]

I wonder where Mitch Marsh fits in the hierarchy of fast bowling ARs. Below Stokes and above all others ??

 

[Bewal Express]

Very Good test bat on course to get 10-12 hundreds, a decent seamer- not quite 3rd but more like 3 1/2. A top odi batsman but 4th seamer at best. A top notch T20 player, amongst the best in the world.

 

[HitWicket]

Very Good test bat on course to get 10-12 hundreds, a decent seamer- not quite 3rd but more like 3 1/2. A top odi batsman but 4th seamer at best. A top notch T20 player, amongst the best in the world.

If he only goes on to get 10-12 test hundreds from here I think he'd have massively underachieved.

 

[Bewal Express]

If he only goes on to get 10-12 test hundreds from here I think he'd have massively underachieved.

But in historical terms it would be great achievement if he also goes onto to get 200 test wickets.

 

[Ab Fan]

Tbh, I find Stokes having the aura of Flintoff in him not Botham. I haven't seen Botham but there must be a lot more things in him which these two dont have.

Flintoff was a kind of player who could do extraordinary stuffs at some time but was inconsistent and his antics went wrong many times. He could win you matches but could also lose you many matches.

Stokes is in the similar league and I can relate his aura to Andrew Flintoff but not Botham.

I haven't seen Botham but I can relate him as someone who was far more consistent and could also win many matches with bat and ball both and <B>most importantly not lose many too</B>.

An undisputed and a true ATG was Botham while Flintoff was much inferior version of that( although in same mould) and Stokes is also an inferior version to Botham but slightly better version to Flintoff.