What's new

Ben Stokes the 'all-rounder'

Haroon786 said:
Nothing wrong with forming ideas but trying to predict the future is very futile.
Click to expand...
Trying to predict is fine too. It is just prediction but arguing their prediction is always right is futile and hillarious.
 
I couldn't have been more right about Junaid which is why take my word on Shehzad.

I don't see how I have been proven wrong by Amla, and Amin will deliver given a good run in the top 4.
 
Glen77 said:
Trying to predict is fine too. It is just prediction but arguing their prediction is always right is futile and hillarious.
Click to expand...

With a small sample size any prediction is an exercise in futility.
 
Mamoon said:
I couldn't have been more right about Junaid which is why take my word on Shehzad.

I don't see how I have been proven wrong by Amla, and Amin will deliver given a good run in the top 4.
Click to expand...
Junaid so far is only a non big match player- he's still a good bowler and was the best odi pacer after Steyn in 2013. Shehzad has scored 100s across all formats. Amin has been a rabbit but he could come good. You called Amla a non big match player, he scored a 50 in the t20 cup- now u only call him a bottler(which he kinda is in LOIs), you said his cap decisions were poor, they resulted in a test win...
 
Mamoon said:
I couldn't have been more right about Junaid which is why take my word on Shehzad.

I don't see how I have been proven wrong by Amla, and Amin will deliver given a good run in the top 4.
Click to expand...
Amin doesn't have what it takes to make it at the international level, while the jury is still out on Amla's ability to perform in ICC KO's.
 
1) Junaid is average and not better than Bhuvenshwar. I said so long time ago when he was picking wickets and the latter was not.

2) If scoring 100s is everything, Tharanga would be an ATG ODI opener. Shehzad is nothing special and a very flawed batsman, plus his strike rotation is dreadful.

3) Amla is still a bottler in ICC events, an odd 50 doesn't change that.

4) I doubted Amla's leadership qualities and I have been proven right. Refer to post 57 in the other thread, the one related to his captaincy. Leadership quality != tactical sense. A good captain is not always a good leader and you can't judge a captain unless you put him to test but you can judge a leader from his personality and attitude.

5) Amin looks like rabbit in headlights because he hasn't batted at his preferred position. A much superior batsman than Shehzad for starters.
 
Judge a leader based on his personality by watching him few hours on tv.

haha
 
Based on how he carries himself. You can spot a leader when you see on, they have a certain aura about them.
 
What leadership test was Amla put under as a player for him to prove? Nothing.

No successful captains ever showed leadership qualities on tv prior to their appointment as captain because there is no way to show it on a ground when the team is being captained by another. They are not going to overshadow the captain and create a tensed team culture.

A good team leader is someone who doesn't force himself on others but talk them into buying him. It is the one who spends time to mentor young players off the fileld and give them confidence to perform. He is the one who sets tasks for players and give them the responsibility to take it upon them to perform for the team.
Amla is a great leader of men I assume based on what his team mates say about him.

I am stupid to say things like I have been in the dressing room and have seen what he does.
 
Mamoon said:
Based on how he carries himself. You can spot a leader when you see on, they have a certain aura about them.
Click to expand...
that is complete rubbish. You just believe your own hype. You got an eye for spotting talents and leadership qualities yada yada
 
Amla is shy, timid, boring and lacks authority. Traits you will not find in a strong leader.
 
Boring? he needs to throw more tantrum like Kohli and shout like little girl eh. He plays the game like a true gentleman.

By the same token S Waugh was not a leader lol
 
A true gentleman who is either cheating himself or letting his teammates do so.
 
Mamoon said:
1) Junaid is average and not better than Bhuvenshwar. I said so long time ago when he was picking wickets and the latter was not.

2) If scoring 100s is everything, Tharanga would be an ATG ODI opener. Shehzad is nothing special and a very flawed batsman, plus his strike rotation is dreadful.

3) Amla is still a bottler in ICC events, an odd 50 doesn't change that.

4) I doubted Amla's leadership qualities and I have been proven right. Refer to post 57 in the other thread, the one related to his captaincy. Leadership quality != tactical sense. A good captain is not always a good leader and you can't judge a captain unless you put him to test but you can judge a leader from his personality and attitude.

5) Amin looks like rabbit in headlights because he hasn't batted at his preferred position. A much superior batsman than Shehzad for starters.
Click to expand...
1) Junaid has already proven to be a wicket taker and was the leading pacer last year. Your supposed talent watch failed to spot his success last year

2) scoring 100s isn't everything, however scoring them as consistently as Shehzad has been doing is a start. His lack of strike rotation is a clear problem which can be dealt with. Shehzad may not be anything special, however he gets the job done unlike your beloved Amin

3) yeah Amla can score a few more 50s, maybe a hundred or two but he'll even then be a bottler :facepalm:

4) hash isn't a natural leader however he has the traits of become an above average captain, which at the end of the day is all that matters

5) he's not much superior to shehzad cos he doesn't have the feats to back it. You can rely on your supposedly talented eye however I rely on actual feats- something shezza has
 
Was referring to Amla.

A gentleman is above matching other people who cheated just to be even with them.
 
Robert said:
Stokes has 7-230 in the series so far.

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Stokes is the bowler in the English team smart enough to ignore the tactical instructions from the bowling coaches/Cook
 
New Botham got a Ton in Perth. The way the Sky commies go on about him like hes some future ATG. He has been a bunny with the bat
 
Woakes in Stokes out

Finn in Plunkett out

Butler in Prior out

England should make these changes for Next game
 
hur rizvi said:
Woakes in Stokes out

Finn in Plunkett out

Butler in Prior out

England should make these changes for Next game
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you get rid of Plunkett? He's hit a 50, batted well in other innings and taken wickets. I agree with the other 2 but Plunkett has been very good. Cant understand why you would want to axe him
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Why on earth would you get rid of Plunkett? He's hit a 50, batted well in other innings and taken wickets. I agree with the other 2 but Plunkett has been very good. Cant understand why you would want to axe him
Click to expand...

Not good enough with his main discipline i-e Bowling ...

Apart from one decent spell he has been plain ordinary through out the series
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Why on earth would you get rid of Plunkett? He's hit a 50, batted well in other innings and taken wickets. I agree with the other 2 but Plunkett has been very good. Cant understand why you would want to axe him
Click to expand...

Not good enough with his main discipline i-e Bowling ...

Apart from one decent spell he has been plain ordinary through out the series
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Why on earth would you get rid of Plunkett? He's hit a 50, batted well in other innings and taken wickets. I agree with the other 2 but Plunkett has been very good. Cant understand why you would want to axe him
Click to expand...

Not good enough with his main discipline i-e Bowling ...

Apart from one decent spell he has been plain ordinary through out the series
 
Stokes is a decent bowler probably been England's best in this series. But he looks a hack batsman atm devoid of confidence and uncertain on his off stump


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Why not? He's a very good player going through a rut. Not the first or the last.

You people have no eye for talent.
 
Kamran in his first couple of years, just like Amir is compared to Wasim now. Your comprehension skills are non existent, unfortunately.

Talent can go to waste. No one has a crystal ball.
 
Last edited:
At this stage of a career, skill-set is the important factor, not performances. No need of getting carried away when an ordinary player does well and when a good player has a bad run. Stokes is a fine player and better with the bat than he is with the ball.
 
Incorrect again. I don't go missing because I'm not insecure about my opinion and neither do I care whether it makes me look arrogant or vain, that's not my problem.

I stick to my beliefs for better or worse and I will be disappointed if England dump Stokes because clearly he's a fine cricketer.
 
Mamoon said:
Incorrect again. I don't go missing because I'm not insecure about my opinion and neither do I care whether it makes me look arrogant or vain, that's not my problem.

I stick to my beliefs for better or worse and I will be disappointed if England dump Stokes because clearly he's a fine cricketer.
Click to expand...
You do go missing tho. That period where BK was getting tonked back in dec you were as quiet as a mouse yet you jumped like a pack of wolves when Junaid Khan had some troubles. If you stick to your supposed beliefs, you're also calling James Anderson better than Dale Steyn(lol!).
Looking arrogant is really ill mannered and is something you definitely should worry about.
 
I like Anderson better because I prefer bowlers who bowl inswingers. Never said he's a better bowler than Steyn.

I have been calling Bhuvi better than Junaid for more than a year now, when Bhuvi was struggling and Junaid was doing well. You are not making any sense. I don't backtrack because I'm on the money more often than not.
 
Mamoon said:
I like Anderson better because I prefer bowlers who bowl inswingers. Never said he's a better bowler than Steyn.

I have been calling Bhuvi better than Junaid for more than a year now, when Bhuvi was struggling and Junaid was doing well. You are not making any sense. I don't backtrack because I'm on the money more often than not.
Click to expand...

No you said he's better in the thread about stats not telling the full story.

When bhuv was struggling you went missing for a bit. And there's that arrogance again :facepalm:
 
I think he has been bowling well, deserves to be persisted with but needs to improve with the bat.
 
Stokes is only averaging 28 with the bat for Durham, which is perhaps why he was coming in here at #8. But if he is playing as a bowler then surely Finn is a better bet.

They could have brought Stokes back too early. Needs some runs under his belt.
 
Correct, stats never tell the full story. Never have and never will.
 
Saj said:
Problem is he's in the side mainly for his batting.

He has to be dropped !
Click to expand...

If he is batting at 8 i don't think it is entirely true that he is in the team for his batting. I would argue he is primarily in the team for his bowling but he should be expected to contribute with the bat.

I think he has bowled relatively well and think young players should be given a long rope. Given how low he bats and the depth of the England batting line-up he should be given another 2 -3 matches.
 
Pretty mediocre at this stage. He's playing at #8 so the batting isn't that big a concern, his bowling is what has been disappointing.

England should get a proper batsman or bowler in for him next game, even Bopara would have been a better option.
 
Robert said:
Stokes is only averaging 28 with the bat for Durham, which is perhaps why he was coming in here at #8. But if he is playing as a bowler then surely Finn is a better bet.

They could have brought Stokes back too early. Needs some runs under his belt.
Click to expand...

I agree that Finn would be the better choice. England need another quality bowler to assist Anderson and Broad. Stokes has time on his side, he'll get his chances later.
 
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...

After his Perth ton is the Hobbit being found out?
 
I like Stokes bowling.

The slight extra bounce he gets really troubles batsman. Tailenders more so.

Not sure if he is a true all rounder cos if his batting average for Durham is just 28.
 
Last edited:
Haz95 said:
Which therefore means James Anderson is better than Dale Steyn?
Click to expand...

No, that means Anderson has been a better bowler for England than what his average suggests. 25-26 would have been a better reflection of his ability as a bowler. He has much more watch winning performances than your regular 30 averaging bowler, has at some point in his career delivered wins for England in every country and has led their attack for 6 years now with his partners blowing hot and cold.

I would put Zaheer Khan in the same boat as well. He has a similar average to a third class bowler like Gul but he was far better. It's not easy to sustain a world class average when you are the only credible pacer in your team for a decade and are over bowled time and time again. Still over a period of time, 2008-2010, he was in the top 3 pacers, just like Anderson was comfortably in the top 2 from around 2010-2012. Therefore, categorizing them with other 31/32 average bowlers who haven't come close to being in the top 3 and never had to carry their teams on their back is illogical.

The moral of all this is not that Anderson or Zaheer are better than Steyn but that statistics taken at face value are misleading, context is very important. Each player has a different story and is subject to different circumstances and therefore, takes a different path as a cricketer.

Simply comparing averages on a piece of paper is a very narrow minded and flawed approach. The reason why I like Anderson more than Steyn is because I prefer bowlers who can move the new ball both ways and I like his action better as well. Anderson is inconsistent yes, but his best is as good as some of the all time greats which makes him better than the most of the other bowlers who have similar averages.

Average is a mean - it adds up the highs and lows to come up with a figure, but that figure doesn't highlight the individual peaks and lows. A batsman who scores 50 every innings can still average 50 and so can a batsman with multiple double hundreds and double hundreds. It's self-explanatory who the better batsman is but their averages will indicate that they are equal because both produce 50 runs per innings.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
 
Mamoon said:
No, that means Anderson has been a better bowler for England than what his average suggests. 25-26 would have been a better reflection of his ability as a bowler. He has much more watch winning performances than your regular 30 averaging bowler, has at some point in his career delivered wins for England in every country and has led their attack for 6 years now with his partners blowing hot and cold.

I would put Zaheer Khan in the same boat as well. He has a similar average to a third class bowler like Gul but he was far better. It's not easy to sustain a world class average when you are the only credible pacer in your team for a decade and are over bowled time and time again. Still over a period of time, 2008-2010, he was in the top 3 pacers, just like Anderson was comfortably in the top 2 from around 2010-2012. Therefore, categorizing them with other 31/32 average bowlers who haven't come close to being in the top 3 and never had to carry their teams on their back is illogical.

The moral of all this is not that Anderson or Zaheer are better than Steyn but that statistics taken at face value are misleading, context is very important. Each player has a different story and is subject to different circumstances and therefore, takes a different path as a cricketer.

Simply comparing averages on a piece of paper is a very narrow minded and flawed approach. The reason why I like Anderson more than Steyn is because I prefer bowlers who can move the new ball both ways and I like his action better as well. Anderson is inconsistent yes, but his best is as good as some of the all time greats which makes him better than the most of the other bowlers who have similar averages.

Average is a mean - it adds up the highs and lows to come up with a figure, but that figure doesn't highlight the individual peaks and lows. A batsman who scores 50 every innings can still average 50 and so can a batsman with multiple double hundreds and double hundreds. It's self-explanatory who the better batsman is but their averages will indicate that they are equal because both produce 50 runs per innings.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Click to expand...
I know stats are misleading or Sangakkara/Kallis would be better than Viv or Sachin but they're not. I am simply saying that you said that Anderson is better than Steyn. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Mamoon said:
And I have clarified it.
Click to expand...

Look you're jumping the point. There was a thread which said stats don't tell everything, some bowlers are better than others. Thats where you said James was better than Steyn; you didn't say he's more entertaining nor did you say he looks better, you said he IS better. Full stop.
 
There are many ways of being better, performance is one. Performance wise over the course of their careers, Steyn has definitely been a better bowler and he will have a longer career as well.
 
Mamoon said:
There are many ways of being better, performance is one. Performance wise over the course of their careers, Steyn has definitely been a better bowler and he will have a longer career as well.
Click to expand...

Let me guess the way someone looks is what determines whether someones good or nah :ik?
Performance is the main thing- feats are the main thing. Steyn has legendary feats while Anderson has good feats, therefore Steyn is better. I base my opinions on feats, not hyperboles or potential else ramprakesh is better than chanderpaul :ibutt
 
Both his batting and bowling look more suited to Australian or South African pitches. Seems like a bowler relying on seam as opposed to swing and a batsman who loves playing square of the wicket as opposed to straight.

He will come good, too talented not to. Just in a bad rut of form.
 
Mamoon said:
No, that means Anderson has been a better bowler for England than what his average suggests. 25-26 would have been a better reflection of his ability as a bowler. He has much more watch winning performances than your regular 30 averaging bowler, has at some point in his career delivered wins for England in every country and has led their attack for 6 years now with his partners blowing hot and cold.

I would put Zaheer Khan in the same boat as well. He has a similar average to a third class bowler like Gul but he was far better. It's not easy to sustain a world class average when you are the only credible pacer in your team for a decade and are over bowled time and time again. Still over a period of time, 2008-2010, he was in the top 3 pacers, just like Anderson was comfortably in the top 2 from around 2010-2012. Therefore, categorizing them with other 31/32 average bowlers who haven't come close to being in the top 3 and never had to carry their teams on their back is illogical.

The moral of all this is not that Anderson or Zaheer are better than Steyn but that statistics taken at face value are misleading, context is very important. Each player has a different story and is subject to different circumstances and therefore, takes a different path as a cricketer.

Simply comparing averages on a piece of paper is a very narrow minded and flawed approach. The reason why I like Anderson more than Steyn is because I prefer bowlers who can move the new ball both ways and I like his action better as well. Anderson is inconsistent yes, but his best is as good as some of the all time greats which makes him better than the most of the other bowlers who have similar averages.

Average is a mean - it adds up the highs and lows to come up with a figure, but that figure doesn't highlight the individual peaks and lows. A batsman who scores 50 every innings can still average 50 and so can a batsman with multiple double hundreds and double hundreds. It's self-explanatory who the better batsman is but their averages will indicate that they are equal because both produce 50 runs per innings.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Click to expand...

If he was such an improved bowler he would have blitzed India on that absolute green top on day 1, he's a thick individual, his mental side of the game is appalling, Jadeja got under his skin on day 4 and he started bowling half trackers and wasted the new ball again. International cricket is 80% mental, he loses there hands down most of the time.
 
Kwremb said:
If he was such an improved bowler he would have blitzed India on that absolute green top on day 1, he's a thick individual, his mental side of the game is appalling, Jadeja got under his skin on day 4 and he started bowling half trackers and wasted the new ball again. International cricket is 80% mental, he loses there hands down most of the time.
Click to expand...


Vaughan reckons that Cook is not strong enough to give his opening bowlers a rollicking. They have got too comfy in the side. They bowl their six-over spells, set their own fields and then expect to come off for a change of shirt. I remember Gooch making Fraser bowl twelve overs off the reel one time.

I would drop Broad for the next one to give his niggles a chance to heal and also give him a boot in the bum, and bring back Finn. They have to get Broad properly fit (and angry) in case Anderson is banned for the last two tests of this series.

Coming back to the OP: The New Clive Rice is currently averaging 25 with the bat and 33 with the ball in tests. Those figures are the wrong way round. He took 5-90 in the last match but got a pair of course, so the batting figures got worse while the bowling figures improved.
 
don't know why jordan was dropped in first place for stokes.

jordan is a much better bowler, and has done ok with the bat as well
 
Stokes got a OD century for Durham yesterday.

Woakes and Jordan have not brought anything to the side as bowlers and it might be time to bring Stokes back, who does at least take wickets and looked better than Anderson early on this summer.

I can see him, Moeen and Buttler competing for the #6 batting slot.
 
Robert said:
Stokes got a OD century for Durham yesterday.

Woakes and Jordan have not brought anything to the side as bowlers and it might be time to bring Stokes back, who does at least take wickets and looked better than Anderson early on this summer.

I can see him, Moeen and Buttler competing for the #6 batting slot.
Click to expand...

Moeen vs Buttler?

Who will keep wickets?
 
I mean that Buttler could bat at #6 and keep wicket. Moeen will have to improve his batting against short stuff if he is to hang onto the #6 spot his place next northern summer.
 
This all-rounder tag is being misused and there needs to be an official criteria when it comes to International level not domestic but International.

If your batting average is higher than your bowling average plus strike rate then you are an all-rounder.

Stokes is overrated and no all-rounder.
 
Can't bat and bowling is nothing special. Ridiculously over-rated by the England pundits because of that one match. Chris Woakes and Chris Jordan are miles better.
 
He just hit an unbelievable 164 off 113 balls for Durham in the 50 over semi final.

A return to form for him??
 
Watched his innings on Tv and looks like a very good hitter, think he will do well in long term.
 
Wow, three wickets and a quickfire 30 odd. Next Flintoff confirmed. :14:
 
Stokes fan club is quite allergic to Moeen bhai. Which means they are going to need a lot of medicine cause Moeen is going to be in the team for a long time. Stokes however, is hanging on by a thread.
 
Moeen bhai can enjoy the green leaves of summer for now. Doesn't have the quality for long-term success.

He will stay in the team because his competition is Tredwell and Briggs which is well underwhelming to say the least.
 
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