What's new

Ben Stokes the 'all-rounder'

S

Saj

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 1, 2001
Runs
96,138
I don't rate him and don't really see what he offers the England team.

His last 10 international innings are 0, 5, 5, 4, 0, 4, 0, 0, 0.

A total of 18 runs at an average of 2 !
 
He's living off that Perth ton albeit it was an excellent ton. But since then he's done very little. Poms like him because he actually showed some backbone against the Aussies last winter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Saj said:
I don't rate him and don't really see what he offers the England team.

His last 10 international innings are 0, 5, 5, 4, 0, 4, 0, 0, 0.

A total of 18 runs at an average of 2 !
Click to expand...


Wow,.. Surprised he's being considered or England don't have any choice
 
Saj said:
I don't rate him and don't really see what he offers the England team.
Click to expand...

Either a #6 batsman and second change swing bowler, or a #7 or #8 batsman and opening bowler. Botham said he was giving Jimmy and Broad a bowling lesson yesterday.
 
His bowling looks his stronger suit was the only English bowler to utilise the seaming conditions on day 1. Batting looks hackish though


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You should hear how the Sky commentators go on and on about him, hilarious.
 
rubbish at the moment. Another overhyped english player. surely there are better players in county?
 
Gabbar Singh said:
Coming in at number 8 he's obviously playing as a bowler who can bat a bit.
Click to expand...

He got a ton against MJ at #6, in his second test. Fella called Steve Waugh didn't do that for 25 tests.

Anyone unbiased will see that Stokes is a player with huge ability and potential. Now it's just a question of backing him until he comes good regularly.
 
Last edited:
Lets be realistic about that Perth ton. England were basically down and out and Stoke guy basically had no pressure plus that Perth pitch wasn't really the type of pitch we all usually hear of back then. Pitch wasn't lively and furious when he scored back then. He's a mediocre player simple as that.
 
He's defo got potential. There's room for him in this eng line up for sure. It takes time and backing to adapt to international cricket and he has 2 aspects to his game where he can contribute. Basically it's early days and I can see this thread being bumped a few times once he fires
 
Give him some time. You don't become a quality all rounder in tests overnight. I believe he has potential.
 
I rate him, he's a really good player who is having a very tough time. I see humble pie written all over this thread.
 
[MENTION=137369]Glen77[/MENTION] leave it, some Pakistani's seem to have a soft spot for mediocre all rounders.
 
Aye, which explains why I don't have an infatuation with Corey Anderson, AKA the next Gary Sobers.
 
Lol Corey Afridi is not even the most promising AR in his side. Neesham has better temperament as evidenced by his performance in the tests he has played so far.
 
leatherface58 said:
Lol Corey Afridi is not even the most promising AR in his side. Neesham has better temperament as evidenced by his performance in the tests he has played so far.
Click to expand...
I'd have Neesham in Tests and Anderson in ODI's, both are well ahead of the Next Botham
 
Stokes is better than both. You got rid of the wrong Kiwi. NZ don't have a good knack for imports/exports, as Luke Ronchi will testify.
 
Mamoon said:
Stokes is better than both. You got rid of the wrong Kiwi. NZ don't have a good knack for imports/exports, as Luke Ronchi will testify.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what Stokes role is, Neesham so far has been a great batsmen for us in Tests while Anderson has been a great all rounder for us in ODI's. I'd like to call Stokes a decent bits and pieces cricketer, but I don't even think he's that. Maybe he falls under the Afridi category, whereby he shows up every 20-30 games and does jack all in the other 19-29? :13:
 
Last edited:
Stokes has much more ability with the bat than both. I am not wholly convinced with his bowling though.
 
Mamoon said:
Stokes has much more ability with the bat than both. I am not wholly convinced with his bowling though.
Click to expand...
Now you're just embarrassing yourself, have you even seen him play before? :facepalm:
 
I don't need more than a few minutes to judge a player. I happen to have a talent for it. A quality player looks good even when scores a duck and an average player looks average while scoring a hundred.
 
Mamoon said:
I don't need more than a few minutes to judge a player. I happen to have a talent for it. A quality player looks good even when scores a duck and an average player looks average while scoring a hundred.
Click to expand...
Mate youtube clipit's don't count, if you've ever seen Neesham, Anderson and Stokes bat you'll know Neesham is a best Test batsmen of the 3 and Anderson is the best ODI batsmen of the 3.

All 3 are pretty ordinary bowlers, with Anderson being the most effective in ODI's and Stokes being the more effective in Tests.
 
Last edited:
I have watched all 3 live and I can judge players from YT if it comes to that.

Neesham is a mediocre player, Corey is decent while Stokes is good. Take my word as Gospel.
 
Aman said:
Mate youtube clipit's don't count, if you've ever seen Neesham, Anderson and Stokes bat you'll know Neesham is a best Test batsmen of the 3 and Anderson is the best ODI batsmen of the 3.

All 3 are pretty ordinary bowlers, with Anderson being the most effective in ODI's and Stokes being the more effective in Tests.
Click to expand...

Neesham is any day better than the other two. I agree with you on that
 
Mamoon said:
I have watched all 3 live and I can judge players from YT if it comes to that.

Neesham is a mediocre player, Corey is decent while Stokes is good. Take my word as Gospel.
Click to expand...
You're wrong, once again.

Being an English player doesn't make you automatically better, think twice when comparing one hit wonders to players who have actually done something.
 
Last edited:
Just like Junaid is not better than Bhuvenshwar Kumar, Neesham is not better than Stokes. With time, the truth will unfold.

All it takes is a little perspective and observance at this stage which unfortunately many PPers don't possess.
 
Mamoon said:
I don't need more than a few minutes to judge a player. I happen to have a talent for it. A quality player looks good even when scores a duck and an average player looks average while scoring a hundred.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Mamoon said:
Just like Junaid is not better than Bhuvenshwar Kumar, Neesham is not better than Stokes. With time, the truth will unfold.

All it takes is a little perspective and observance at this stage which unfortunately many PPers don't possess.
Click to expand...
Yep, only you have an eye for talent. BK was obvious, in this case you're looking for something that's not even there.
 
Aman said:
Mate youtube clipit's don't count, if you've ever seen Neesham, Anderson and Stokes bat you'll know Neesham is a best Test batsmen of the 3 and Anderson is the best ODI batsmen of the 3.

All 3 are pretty ordinary bowlers, with Anderson being the most effective in ODI's and Stokes being the more effective in Tests.
Click to expand...

echoes my sentiment
 
Mamoon said:
I don't need more than a few minutes to judge a player. I happen to have a talent for it. A quality player looks good even when scores a duck and an average player looks average while scoring a hundred.
Click to expand...
The fasting is getting to you man.
 
Stokes at the moment is bitsa. Yes England should aim to develop him but he should have to meet minimum performance requirements to get selected.

At the moment he isn't performing well enough with the bat to be an allrounder and if he's playing for his bowling then England have one too many specialist fast bowlers.

His selection ahead of a spinner is one of the reasons the English team is so unbalanced at the moment.

He is like Jame Faulkner but better with the bat and worse with the ball. This means he could probably one day hold down a test spot with a mid 30s batting average low 30s bowling average.
 
There is wisdom in those words, not offshoots of fasting.
 
it takes talent to look good even you are not playing well, this is the sign of a good player.
 
Mamoon said:
I don't need more than a few minutes to judge a player. I happen to have a talent for it. A quality player looks good even when scores a duck and an average player looks average while scoring a hundred.
Click to expand...

How do you rate Shaun Marsh then?
 
I think he is an extremely fine player but doesn't have the mental fortitude. Mental strength cannot be gauged in minutes so the possibility of Stokes being mentally weak but talented cannot be discounted yet.
 
:)) Those returns are abysmal.

But I still rate him above the likes of Bairstow etc.
 
If I were England, I'd be worried about the lack of quality talent coming through. Other than Root and maybe Hales, who else is there?
 
Last edited:
Gary Ballance. I said he'd be able to replace Pietersen in terms of output (not impact) long before he started scoring runs.

Ballance and Root will be the cornerstones of English batting for years to come.
 
Mamoon said:
it takes talent to look good even you are not playing well, this is the sign of a good player.
Click to expand...
Graeme Smith looks horrible even in full form.

Lara and KP looked terrible when not playing well.

You gotta watch them
play few times and see them in full flow to see their full potential.

If you saw Elgar in debut, you would have laughed but he got an important 80 against Australia when they finally asked him to open and now he looks the part.

You cannot judge everyone based on 2 or 3 innings. Some players you can but not all
 
Mamoon said:
Gary Ballance. I said he'd be able to replace Pietersen in terms of output (not impact) long before he started scoring runs.

Ballance and Root will be the cornerstones of English batting for years to come.
Click to expand...
Too early to say much on Ballance, haven't really seen much of him to say anything either.
 
Smith has horrible playing style, but you can see his ability when he plays.

By looking good and looking bad, I don't necessarily mean being pleasing on the eye. For example, Imran Farhat is actually quite stylish but he's rubbish.

I can't explain this in words, but when a good player gets out cheaply, you can see that he is a good player.
 
At best a decent cricketer, he has the capability of scoring big or hitting match winning knocks once in a while, but he isn't either a fully fledged batsman or a fully fledged bowler.

IMO he doesn't have the time to become good at both disciplines, however he can develop either batting or bowling to become a decent player, but he's definitely no second coming of Botham.
 
Ballance is here to stay but he is not a 50+ average player. He is yet to be tested against a proper attack or away from home.

I am most impressed by Kane, Rahane and D Bravo of all new comers.
 
And yes, James Taylor is another really fine English bat.
 
I don't pretend to have magic globe about the future, but Ballance does look like a mighty fine player when he's set a la during the 110 against India.
 
Ballance will be a good player.

I don't think he'll be KP but he'll be a solid international batsman.
 
I don't have it either and I can't predict the future, but yes I pride on having a tremendous cricketing brain and impressive acumen.
 
Very few players can replicate KP in terms of impact so it would be unfair to judge him on that front.
 
Mamoon said:
I don't have it either and I can't predict the future, but yes I pride on having a tremendous cricketing brain and impressive acumen.
Click to expand...
Why are you wasting your time here then? Why not go out and discover Pakistan's next Akram and Waqar?
 
Don't believe you can predict so and so will become good or great until having a suitable sample size.

I agree about Root, he looks like solid batsman.
 
Watching Pakistan become the biggest force in cricket is not my priority. Its just a game that I love, but its just a game after all. I have bigger aspirations.
 
Last edited:
Haroon786 said:
Don't believe you can predict so and so will become good or great until having a suitable sample size.

I agree about Root, he looks like solid batsman.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's silly to form an opinion on something on your first glance.
 
Last edited:
I bet [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] was one of those guys calling Stokes the next Botham after the Ashes.

It's easy to mistake ticker for talent, this seems to be the case with Stokes.
 
I didn't, but I said at that point that he is a very fine cricketer, an assessment I still hold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
How do you compare present Indian team's dominance with great Australian side?
2 3
Replies
166
Views
4K
kron
K
The Bald Eagle
Ben Curran - brother of Tom and Sam Curran, playing for Zimbabwe
Replies
13
Views
775
Ball Blazer
Ball Blazer
Savak
Resume of the 90's team vs Resume of the 2003 team onwards
Replies
61
Views
2K
TheSultan
T
RidiculousMan
Who's the better ODI all-rounder: Shaheen Shah Afridi or Faheem Ashraf?
Replies
55
Views
1K
Hyder
H
Mamoon
The Jasprit Bumrah workload myth: Is opting out of the 2nd Test against England justified?
6 7 8
Replies
602
Views
14K
BunnyRabbit
B
Back
Top