Ben Stokes versus Ian Botham - Greatest England cricketer ever?

[Robert]

He also got taken apart the next day by Gordon Greenidge. Don't get me wrong, I rate Botham above Stokes because of his bowling but he severely underperformed against the best team of that era.

Incidentally this pitch at Leeds was anything but flat, and the Australians didn't bowl badly at all.

They all did, the wicket went super flat on the last day and the only wicket was a run-out. Botham had burned himself out bowling quick in the first innings.

The Headingley strip in the last test was good for batting and got easier. But neither side can bat.

Comparing players from different eras is daft though. Let’s just be grateful for Botham then and Stokes now.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Lol at Trueman being faster than any English bowler ever. )

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Also Botham's batting is overrated, he didn't score against bowlers of the quality of Hazelwood/Pattinson/Cummins/Lyon. This is a more competitive era of test match cricket and Botham wouldn't last a single ball against Cummins.

 

[James]

Players from 80s era & earlier are ridiculously overhyped.

 

[Ab Fan]

Actually I saw him take an eightfer and then score 81 later that same day against them so "never" is incorrect.

Stokes has never played bowling of that quality. Nobody playing today has.

Neither has Stokes faced a Lillee, or Imran, or Hadlee. <But>If Botham played today on these flat decks he would average fifty with the bat</B>.

But then if Pat Cummins, Kagiso Rabada or Jasprit Bumrah would have played in 80s era, they should be averaging close to 15 with the bowl??

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Overall I feel although great Stokes is not in the class of Botham as a test allrounder.Has Stokes achieved anything close to Bothams 1981 Ashes or 1980 Jubilee test or had comparable figures to Botham peak years from 1977-1982.Technically as sound as a batsmen or as versatile , intelligent and deceptive as a bowler?

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Overall I feel although great Stokes is not in the class of Botham as a test allrounder.Has Stokes achieved anything close to Bothams 1981 Ashes or 1980 Jubilee test or had comparable figures to Botham peak years from 1977-1982.Technically as sound as a batsmen or as versatile , intelligent and deceptive as a bowler?

1981 Ashes were undoubtedly a super-human feat from Botham who in-turn inspired England to lift the urn aswell but let's not forget it was one Ashes series that is built-up a little too much by the English. Botham still failed to win the World Cup, he failed to inspire England to victory in Australia later on and his career tailed off badly towards the latter part to the point that he was a basically a medium-pacer by the end and a half-decent batsman.

Stokes has already won England the World Cup something England dreamed off ever since 92 and let's not forget he was one of the major factors behind England's win. The 135 against Australia is as good a knock as anyone ever played in test cricket. I think its better than Botham's 149 if not as good.

And though Botham will likely always remain the superior bowler to Stokes because Stokes is/was never a front-line bowler, legacy-wise Stokes has a a pretty good chance of ending up as England's greatest ever all-rounder. Leading them to an Ashes win here will go a long way in cementing that legacy.

 

[Hasan123]

What a player Stokes is.

 

[irfan]

Moeen has given his opinion, not biased of course!

Magnificent Ben Stokes is England’s greatest ever all-rounder
My friend’s feats at Headingley and in the World Cup final at Lord’s have elevated him above legends Ian Botham and Andrew Flintoff. He is the best cricketer I have played alongside

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/26/magnificent-ben-stokes-england-greatest-all-rounder

 

[Robert]

But then if Pat Cummins, Kagiso Rabada or Jasprit Bumrah would have played in 80s era, they should be averaging close to 15 with the bowl??

Interesting question. I wouldn’t say that Bumrah was any better than Kapil with the ball. I wonder how he would go against eighties batters with their stronger defensive techniques?

 

[Robert]

1981 Ashes were undoubtedly a super-human feat from Botham who in-turn inspired England to lift the urn aswell but let's not forget it was one Ashes series that is built-up a little too much by the English. Botham still failed to win the World Cup, he failed to inspire England to victory in Australia later on and his career tailed off badly towards the latter part to the point that he was a basically a medium-pacer by the end and a half-decent batsman.

Stokes has already won England the World Cup something England dreamed off ever since 92 and let's not forget he was one of the major factors behind England's win. The 135 against Australia is as good a knock as anyone ever played in test cricket. I think its better than Botham's 149 if not as good.

And though Botham will likely always remain the superior bowler to Stokes because Stokes is/was never a front-line bowler, legacy-wise Stokes has a a pretty good chance of ending up as England's greatest ever all-rounder. Leading them to an Ashes win here will go a long way in cementing that legacy.

Eh? Botham had thirteen more centuries. And England did win the Ashes in Australia in 86/7. England won two tests - Botham scored 138 in one and took 5-41 in the other.

 

[Robert]

Players from 80s era & earlier are ridiculously overhyped.

Saying Trueman was the quickest ever England bowler is certainly hyperbole as his contemporary Tyson was quicker.

But it’s reasonable to say he was England’s best ever fast bowler. Look at the numbers alone. Look at the strike rate.

 

[Robert]

Also Botham's batting is overrated, he didn't score against bowlers of the quality of Hazelwood/Pattinson/Cummins/Lyon. This is a more competitive era of test match cricket and Botham wouldn't last a single ball against Cummins.

Lillee and Hadlee were better than any of those guys.

 

[James]

Saying Trueman was the quickest ever England bowler is certainly hyperbole as his contemporary Tyson was quicker.

But it’s reasonable to say he was England’s best ever fast bowler. Look at the numbers alone. Look at the strike rate.

Not got too much of an issue with that one, it’s more the “these bowlers would have not been able to keep me favourite batters quiet in the 70s & 80s / them flimsy batsmen would have never scored against them bowlers in my day me young man” superior faux-sagely attitude that a lot of older fans seem to take.

 

[Ab Fan]

Lillee and Hadlee were better than any of those guys.

They played in bowling conditions. Aren't pitches flatter today?

 

[Robert]

They played in bowling conditions. Aren't pitches flatter today?

Yes and no.

Lillee’s best bowling performance (7-81 IIRC) was on the uber-road at Melbourne.

It’s fair to say that Hadlee played half his career on greentops in NZ. But he also did well on the Subcontinent.

The game was different - scoring was slower and there were a lot of drawn matches due to tighter techniques.

Stokes played magnificently on a moderate seamer offering true bounce under blue skies. In the eighties it was a horror wicket, a true green mamba with variable bounce too, and on top of that usually cloudy. So he would have needed a lot of luck, as Botham enjoyed in his 149 not out.

 

[Robert]

Not got too much of an issue with that one, it’s more the “these bowlers would have not been able to keep me favourite batters quiet in the 70s & 80s / them flimsy batsmen would have never scored against them bowlers in my day me young man” superior faux-sagely attitude that a lot of older fans seem to take.

I think they would have kept a lot of eighties batters quiet. Not everyone was Viv Richards.

I get a bit cross at the ‘everything is better now’ brigade. Some things are definitely better such as hitting for power and fielding, other things such as defensive techniques are by and large worse.

 

[Ab Fan]

Yes and no.

Lillee’s best bowling performance (7-81 IIRC) was on the uber-road at Melbourne.

It’s fair to say that Hadlee played half his career on greentops in NZ. But he also did well on the Subcontinent.

The game was different - scoring was slower and there were a lot of drawn matches due to tighter techniques.

Stokes played magnificently on a moderate seamer offering true bounce under blue skies. In the eighties it was a horror wicket, a true green mamba with variable bounce too, and on top of that usually cloudy. So he would have needed a lot of luck, as Botham enjoyed in his 149 not out.

So, basically the point is in older era, the batters had tight defense, runs were hard to come by and due to tighter defense, it was hard to get them out. The mindset was defensive in that era, resulting in more drawn games. Those players were more on the lines of Cook, Pujara, Boycott etc. Viv was different and hence is the greatest batsmen from that era.

Current players have attacking mindset, willing to take risk and score runs, the idea is to win the match and not end with a boring draw.The players today are more on lines of Kohli,Smith, KP, ABD etc.

I know what I have to pick. Modern era have different challenges and players are doing well to cope with this. They have to well different formats, different brand of game, never easy out there.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Eh? Botham had thirteen more centuries. And England did win the Ashes in Australia in 86/7. England won two tests - Botham scored 138 in one and took 5-41 in the other.

I should have clarified. I was speaking of the Ashes immediately succeeding the 81' Ashes.

And I'm not saying Botham wasn't a good batsman but the low-points of his career significantly diminish his legacy. I know he scored 14 centuries the comparison to his 149 has been up drawn up by a number of sports journalists because of the nearly impossible situations they were scored against Australia at Headingly no less, where all bets were on England to lose.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

So, basically the point is in older era, the batters had tight defense, runs were hard to come by and due to tighter defense, it was hard to get them out. The mindset was defensive in that era, resulting in more drawn games. Those players were more on the lines of Cook, Pujara, Boycott etc. Viv was different and hence is the greatest batsmen from that era.

Current players have attacking mindset, willing to take risk and score runs, the idea is to win the match and not end with a boring draw.The players today are more on lines of Kohli,Smith, KP, ABD etc.

I know what I have to pick. Modern era have different challenges and players are doing well to cope with this. They have to well different formats, different brand of game, never easy out there.

People hold old eras up to a ridiculously high standard often disregarding the uber defensive mindset of players from that era which often made for incredibly monotonous test cricket. The older eras had their own charms but comparing them to the modern era and the even older eras of uncovered pitches and saying one was better then the other is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Robert]

I should have clarified. I was speaking of the Ashes immediately succeeding the 81' Ashes.

And I'm not saying Botham wasn't a good batsman but the low-points of his career significantly diminish his legacy. I know he scored 14 centuries the comparison to his 149 has been up drawn up by a number of sports journalists because of the nearly impossible situations they were scored against Australia at Headingly no less, where all bets were on England to lose.

Botham’s 118 later that Ashes series was much better.

In the 149* match he also took a first-innings sixfer, curtailing the Australians significantly, else his 149* would have been a vainglorious last stand in an innings defeat.

 

[Robert]

People hold old eras up to a ridiculously high standard often disregarding the uber defensive mindset of players from that era which often made for incredibly monotonous test cricket. The older eras had their own charms but comparing them to the modern era and the even older eras of uncovered pitches and saying one was better then the other is like comparing apples and oranges.

Apart from the 1981/2 England ‘Siege Tour” of India, where both sides were bowling nine overs an hour with the spinners on, I can’t recall ever being bored by test cricket. It always yields something interesting.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Ben Stokes is an amazing player. gotta wait till the end of his career to see where he ends up.

BTW I only compare modern players with post 90 players because of the better tv footage. Also post 90, speed meters came into play & fast bowling myths died(Nonsense such as X bowler bowled 170+kmph cant be uttered).
pre 90s era I feel is full of stories & myths. I always hear how everything was better in that era. If you speak of batsmen, 70-80s will be hailed as greatest as they played in bowling heavens. If you speak of bowlers, those same bowling heavens will then turn into batting paradise to demonstrate the greatness of 70-80s bowlers & how they picked wickets in flat decks. No surprise the said romanticism is absent while talking about the 90s as it has extensive footage & speed radars to objectively compare players(as stats are garbage to 70-80s lovers)

 

[Robert]

Ben Stokes is an amazing player. gotta wait till the end of his career to see where he ends up.

BTW I only compare modern players with post 90 players because of the better tv footage. Also post 90, speed meters came into play & fast bowling myths died(Nonsense such as X bowler bowled 170+kmph cant be uttered).
pre 90s era I feel is full of stories & myths. I always hear how everything was better in that era. If you speak of batsmen, 70-80s will be hailed as greatest as they played in bowling heavens. If you speak of bowlers, those same bowling heavens will then turn into batting paradise to demonstrate the greatness of 70-80s bowlers & how they picked wickets in flat decks. No surprise the said romanticism is absent while talking about the 90s as it has extensive footage & speed radars to objectively compare players(as stats are garbage to 70-80s lovers)

Stats aren't garbage, they are one tool in a box. There are other tools. If you talk to the people who were there you will find out how to interpret the stats / apply the tools to get a better picture of what really happened.

For example, I watched Botham take 5-40, and Wasim take 0-50. Stats say Botham bowled better, right? But I saw Botham take five wickets with long-hops whioch should have been pulled for four, while Wasim beat the bat dozens of times and didn't get any nicks.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Botham, the bowler, was in another level. Stokes is more like Kallis, the batting all-rounder.

England should play Stokes at #4 to release the burden on Root.

 

[Mobashir]

Botham, the bowler, was in another level. Stokes is more like Kallis, the batting all-rounder.

England should play Stokes at #4 to release the burden on Root.

The number 4 batsman in test cricket should be someone who scores havely. So Root should bat himself at 4 because he is capable of scoring consistently.

Stokes is not someone who is going to average around 50 or even 45 with the bat. He is a key player who plays key innings. He is perfectly fine at number 5 for England.

That said, I don't think Stokes is yet at the level of Ian Botham but he surely can achieve as much if he continues to do so well.

I have always maintained that Stokes is a special player. Now that Steyn has retired, Stokes has moved to become the second best active player in the world behind Steven Smith.

 

[James]

Stokes had a poor year in 2018 with the bat, but this year he is averaging 57 - that’s in addition to an average of 44 in 2017 and 45 in 2016. He has improved his batting significantly this year and (given our top order struggles) he is good enough to bat in our top four.

 

[Ab Fan]

Stokes had a poor year in 2018 with the bat, but this year he is averaging 57 - that’s in addition to an average of 44 in 2017 and 45 in 2016. He has improved his batting significantly this year and (given our top order struggles) he is good enough to bat in our top four.

It's important to have two of your best bats in the top 4, but both should be the ones who average 45+ with bat. Stokes is an all-rounder and while he is doing great with bat at 5, I would keep him there only. Let's have a specialist bat in your top 4.

That's the case in every good batting lineup. An opener and a no.4 or a no.3 and a no.4, whom we call as the two main batters. So, England should try to have one such bat in top4, maybe Bairstow if he would have given up gloves as he was starting to transform himself as world class bat. But that perhaps didn't went the right way.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Botham’s 118 later that Ashes series was much better.

In the 149* match he also took a first-innings sixfer, curtailing the Australians significantly, else his 149* would have been a vainglorious last stand in an innings defeat.

I don't now where you came up with the 118. It was a very good innings but countless such have been played. The 149* is regarded by people as one of the best because in many ways it served as the flash-point for England's resurgence in that Ashes and also because it came while England were following on.

But after some more thought I'm fairly certain that Stokes's innings at Headingly is the greatest ever played by an Englishman and ofcourse easily one of the greatest test cricket has ever seen.

Many people have made the comparison to the 149 but the reality is that Botham was just having a bit of fun for the initial part of that innings. During much of that initial period he generally had no clue what he was doing, playing streaky shots and getting away with some thick edges. And obviously Bob Willis had a major hand in crafting that victory aswell with his angry and hostile spell with the ball in the 4th innings. The 118 I'm not even going to compare because there have been countless innings in which players have come in at worse situations and not only bailed their sides out of trouble but also led them to victory. Context is also important. England were up 2-1 at that point and had retained the confidence that was nowhere to be found till they came from behind to win at Headingly.

Stokes's innings featured phases. There was one phase where he was 2 off 50, blocking with the greatest assurity. The was the second phase where he moved into another gear and started hitting boundaries. And finally there was the third phase where he just flipped a switch and from there on in you just knew you were going to stop him was by getting Leach. The way he took on Hazelwood, the best bowler in the match hitting him for 3 sixes in one over. On Lyon with that reverse sweep for six and the way he held his nerve through it all. It was simply incredible on so many levels.

Another key difference with Botham I would like to point out. And this stands for both the 149 and the 118. Botham did not fully know the consequences of his innings because England were still to bowl in both those matches. So he was playing under pressure but it was more like "okay let's see where this goes from here" not the kind of which Stokes was playing under who knew perfectly well that the match and England's survival in the Ashes depended on him playing a super-human knock. Which he did.

 

[James]

Looking forward to the post-Wisden batting rankings (Golden Willow) being updated, in order to see how many points have been scored by the Stokes innings.

The usual suspects are in the Top 10 (Laxman 281, Lara’s run chase, Botham’s Headingley, Gooch v West Indies), with Kusal Perera’s recent gem at number one, so there is every chance that Stokes could be right up there.

 

[Robert]

I don't now where you came up with the 118. It was a very good innings but countless such have been played. The 149* is regarded by people as one of the best because in many ways it served as the flash-point for England's resurgence in that Ashes and also because it came while England were following on.

But after some more thought I'm fairly certain that Stokes's innings at Headingly is the greatest ever played by an Englishman and ofcourse easily one of the greatest test cricket has ever seen.

Many people have made the comparison to the 149 but the reality is that Botham was just having a bit of fun for the initial part of that innings. During much of that initial period he generally had no clue what he was doing, playing streaky shots and getting away with some thick edges. And obviously Bob Willis had a major hand in crafting that victory aswell with his angry and hostile spell with the ball in the 4th innings. The 118 I'm not even going to compare because there have been countless innings in which players have come in at worse situations and not only bailed their sides out of trouble but also led them to victory. Context is also important. England were up 2-1 at that point and had retained the confidence that was nowhere to be found till they came from behind to win at Headingly.

Stokes's innings featured phases. There was one phase where he was 2 off 50, blocking with the greatest assurity. The was the second phase where he moved into another gear and started hitting boundaries. And finally there was the third phase where he just flipped a switch and from there on in you just knew you were going to stop him was by getting Leach. The way he took on Hazelwood, the best bowler in the match hitting him for 3 sixes in one over. On Lyon with that reverse sweep for six and the way he held his nerve through it all. It was simply incredible on so many levels.

Another key difference with Botham I would like to point out. And this stands for both the 149 and the 118. Botham did not fully know the consequences of his innings because England were still to bowl in both those matches. So he was playing under pressure but it was more like "okay let's see where this goes from here" not the kind of which Stokes was playing under who knew perfectly well that the match and England's survival in the Ashes depended on him playing a super-human knock. Which he did.

Because it was in the same series as the 149* and was a chanceless innings. In-between the two, he took five wickets for one run to win another match.

This is a pointless debate.

 

[Robert]

Stokes had a poor year in 2018 with the bat, but this year he is averaging 57 - that’s in addition to an average of 44 in 2017 and 45 in 2016. He has improved his batting significantly this year and (given our top order struggles) he is good enough to bat in our top four.

We need him to bowl though.

On the other hand, the top six is so weak that he gets no rest anyway so may as well send him in at #3 !

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Because it was in the same series as the 149* and was a chanceless innings. In-between the two, he took five wickets for one run to win another match.

This is a pointless debate.

You keep bringing his bowling into this but I'm not talking about that nor the overall series performance. I'm talking about best batting performance in a single innings. And regardless of whichever innings you side with none compares to the one Stokes played for all the reasons I mentioned above.

 

[Rellu_Katta]

Unfair to compare both of them... Botham won matches with his bowling... Stokes, at best, dents the opposition with his bowling, doesnt finish them off so on bowling far way to go..

Batting wise, both of them at good level... problem is Botham had the fearful WI (against who he failed) and strong aussies (against who he was hot n cold) and a fast rising Pakistan (hot n cold again) ... Stokes doesnt have tht .. we dont know how he will play against a mighty team .. not his fault ..but still a tick box he cannot check.

A better comparison would be Kallis but then Kallis was at par with stokes on bowling and miles ahead on batting so no comparison there too lol but then he is better than anyother all rounder of post 2000 in test cricket (apart from Kallis ofcourse)

 

[Manunited18]

Stokes is obviously a quality player , but to put him in bothams class is going over the top, just think botham 28 fifers and 15 test hundreds, the guy was a genius

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Lillee and Hadlee were better than any of those guys.

Lillee and hadlee did not play for the same team. Only the windies had a relentless attack with no easy bowlers to score off. How did Botham fare against them.

 

[Manunited18]

Lillee and hadlee did not play for the same team. Only the windies had a relentless attack with no easy bowlers to score off. How did Botham fare against them.

I don't agree with most of that, ok if botham didn't consistently perform against Windies, but as a allrounder he hadc15 test hundreds and 28 fifers, also the pakistan attack of akram imran Abdul qadir was a high class attack, Indian team know about imran, also Viv admitted in the Windies dominant era pakistan was one team who were very competitive against them

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I don't agree with most of that, ok if botham didn't consistently perform against Windies, but as a allrounder he hadc15 test hundreds and 28 fifers, also the pakistan attack of akram imran Abdul qadir was a high class attack, Indian team know about imran, also Viv admitted in the Windies dominant era pakistan was one team who were very competitive against them

Akram became a terror only in the 90's. Lol at qadir. Have you even seen his away record? Imran was the only high quality bowler in that lineup.

 

[Manunited18]

Akram became a terror only in the 90's. Lol at qadir. Have you even seen his away record? Imran was the only high quality bowler in that lineup.

Wrong, wasim was top class late 80's then was a living legend in the 90's, imran akram in the 80's were hostile and top class as any Windies paceman, Viv stated himself he could not play qadir

 

[Ab Fan]

As a batter:-

Ben Stokes- 7
Ian Botham- 6

As a bowler:-

Ben Stokes- 6
Ian Botham- 8

Overall, Botham ahead by a level but Stokes also is an ATG with his all-round impact towards the game.

 

[Manunited18]

As a batter:-

Ben Stokes- 7
Ian Botham- 6

As a bowler:-

Ben Stokes- 6
Ian Botham- 8

Overall, Botham ahead by a level but Stokes also is an ATG with his all-round impact towards the game.

Botham is one of the greatest allrounders ever, stokes is far from a great, in fact for me he's just starting in last couple of years to perform as a world class allrounder

 

[Robert]

Lillee and hadlee did not play for the same team. Only the windies had a relentless attack with no easy bowlers to score off. How did Botham fare against them.

Precisely my point - Stokes has never played an attack of that calibre and never will.

 

[Robert]

As a batter:-

Ben Stokes- 7
Ian Botham- 6

As a bowler:-

Ben Stokes- 6
Ian Botham- 8

Overall, Botham ahead by a level but Stokes also is an ATG with his all-round impact towards the game.

Both 9 as fielders.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Precisely my point - Stokes has never played an attack of that calibre and never will.

Sure. Any data or facts to back that up and prove objectively that the attacks Botham faced were better than the ones Stokes faced?

 

[Manunited18]

Sure. Any data or facts to back that up and prove objectively that the attacks Botham faced were better than the ones Stokes faced?

The naked eye my friend, some of these past greats are in commentary boxes, they can visual what they faced then and what players are facing now, David Gower even suggested once the bowling he faced specially from the Windies looked considerably quicker than anything now, personslly i have yet to see anyone bowl as fast pre injury waqar younis late 80's early 90's, a guy who reached 200 test wickets at a unblievable rate with fear full speed

 

[Ab Fan]

Botham is one of the greatest allrounders ever, stokes is far from a great, in fact for me he's just starting in last couple of years to perform as a world class allrounder

Yeah, that's because you aren't aware of his 260 Vs SA in SA conditions, hundreds in Australia and India and a match winning all-round performance in a test in Bangladesh, never-mind winning his team the WC being standout performer for them( he was bigger than Root and Archer in WC'19).

He belongs to the league of 80s quartet +Kallis.

 

[Robert]

Yeah, that's because you aren't aware of his 260 Vs SA in SA conditions, hundreds in Australia and India and a match winning all-round performance in a test in Bangladesh, never-mind winning his team the WC being standout performer for them( he was bigger than Root and Archer in WC'19).

He belongs to the league of 80s quartet +Kallis.

Those guys could be picked for their batting (except Hadlee) and bowling. Stokes would not be picked as a bowler alone, and I don’t believe he is a better batter than Botham and Imran.

The Kallis comparison is more appropriate, but he will have to score massively with the bat from now on to be considered in the same bracket as Hammond, Sobers and Kallis as the top batting allrounders.

 

[Manunited18]

Yeah, that's because you aren't aware of his 260 Vs SA in SA conditions, hundreds in Australia and India and a match winning all-round performance in a test in Bangladesh, never-mind winning his team the WC being standout performer for them( he was bigger than Root and Archer in WC'19).

He belongs to the league of 80s quartet +Kallis.

I'm aware of his achievements to date, his stats to date don't match up with botham or imran, the thing about Kallis a great accumulator of runs but was no match winner like botham or imran or kapil

 

[Robert]

Sure. Any data or facts to back that up and prove objectively that the attacks Botham faced were better than the ones Stokes faced?

That Lillee and Hadlee raised the bar, pushed the wicket record right out. I can’t see any modern quick bowler doing that.

They developed the form too. Lillee was the first modern fast bowler, who didn’t stop when he hit thirty but carried on operating at reduced pace cutting and swinging it - that hadn’t happened before - and Hadlee refined what Lillee had done even further.

 

[Manunited18]

Those guys could be picked for their batting (except Hadlee) and bowling. Stokes would not be picked as a bowler alone, and I don’t believe he is a better batter than Botham and Imran.

The Kallis comparison is more appropriate, but he will have to score massively with the bat from now on to be considered in the same bracket as Hammond, Sobers and Kallis as the top batting allrounders.

Yes 100% bang on

 

[Robert]

Yes 100% bang on

And like those three great men, Stokes is a superlative catcher.

I would love to see him average fifty with the bat but reckon he will top out in the low forties.

 

[Ab Fan]

Those guys could be picked for their batting (except Hadlee) and bowling. Stokes would not be picked as a bowler alone, and I don’t believe he is a better batter than Botham and Imran.

The Kallis comparison is more appropriate, but he will have to score massively with the bat from now on to be considered in the same bracket as Hammond, Sobers and Kallis as the top batting allrounders.

Imran Khan- 88 tests, 5 hundreds
Ben Stokes- 55 tests, 8 hundreds

Ben Stokes is a much better batter than Imran Khan IMO and also better than Botham. As a bowler, he is inferior though.

 

[Robert]

Imran Khan- 88 tests, 5 hundreds
Ben Stokes- 55 tests, 8 hundreds

Ben Stokes is a much better batter than Imran Khan IMO and also better than Botham. As a bowler, he is inferior though.

Careful, the Imran fanboiz wil swarm with their fifty-average-for-years.
I thought Immo had six. One against Marshall’s boys. Pretty good in that era of lower batting averages.

 

[Manunited18]

Imran Khan- 88 tests, 5 hundreds
Ben Stokes- 55 tests, 8 hundreds

Ben Stokes is a much better batter than Imran Khan IMO and also better than Botham. As a bowler, he is inferior though.

Lol, he's not much better in batting terms, but when it comes bowling there's a Hugh difference, plus imran was a great captain

 

[Ab Fan]

Lol, he's not much better in batting terms, but when it comes bowling there's a Hugh difference, plus imran was a great captain

Ofcourse, Imran was undoubtedly a top tier ATG all-rounder of his era. That's not up for debate. But Stokes is certainly a much better bat than Imran or Kapil and on par with Botham.

 

[The Viper]

Stokes has a high ceiling with the bat and should end with an average of 40 plus in tests.

 

[Manunited18]

Ofcourse, Imran was undoubtedly a top tier ATG all-rounder of his era. That's not up for debate. But Stokes is certainly a much better bat than Imran or Kapil and on par with Botham.

Stokes is not better than imran with the bat, but currently there stats with the bat are similar so let's not get carried away

 

[Manunited18]

Stokes is not better than imran with the bat, but currently there stats with the bat are similar so let's not get carried away

I meant stokes is not alot better than imran

 

[MenInG]

Looks like another chance for Stokes to do his magic....

 

[Ab Fan]

England win is now out of question, they need a magical performance from someone to save this test unless of course rain saves them.

 

[MenInG]

Ben Stokes and his mother have reportedly launched legal action against The Sun after the UK newspaper published a front-page story with sensitive information about the allrounder’s family. The Sun had last month published a story which described in detail events of more than 30 years ago involving the deaths of members of Stokes’ New Zealand-based family.

Over a month after the incident, Stokes and his mother Deborah have filed proceedings against ‘The Sun’ for invasion of privacy. Their lawyers will argue that the story breached the family’s privacy by bringing up an issue that had been largely forgotten, The Guardian reported.

Stokes, who starred in England’s maiden World Cup win, had posted a statement on Twitter criticising ‘The Sun’. He called the paper “utterly disgusting” for publishing a story that touched on “deeply personal and traumatic events”.

Stokes, 28, was born in New Zealand but moved to England as a boy. However, ‘The Sun’ defended its approach, saying the story had received extensive media coverage in New Zealand at that time.

“The Sun has the utmost sympathy for Ben Stokes and his mother but it is only right to point out the story was told with the co-operation of a family member who supplied details, provided photographs and posed for pictures,” a spokeswoman for the newspaper said. “The tragedy is also a matter of public record and was the subject of extensive front-page publicity in New Zealand at that time.”

https://www.cricketcountry.com/news...over-newspaper-for-controversial-story-898776

 

[MenInG]

England all-rounder Ben Stokes says he is still preparing for a return to competitive cricket in the Indian Premier League next month.

India was put into a three-week "total lockdown" on Tuesday because of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic.

The start of the IPL season has been delayed until 15 April at the earliest but it has not been cancelled.

"At the moment my next competitive cricket is going to be in the IPL," Stokes told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"I have to get my head round that I am playing even though in the back of my mind I know I am probably not. I have to build up and get myself physically in a position that if it does happen I am good to go.

"I cannot take three weeks off and expect the body to be ready for 20 April because it doesn't work like that. It might happen and if it does I don't want to be behind."

Stokes, 28, is one of 13 English players due to feature in the lucrative tournament, which was due to start on 29 March.

Last week, the England and Wales Cricket Board announced that the county season would not start until at least the end of May.

Stokes is spending a sustained period at home after England's winter tour of Sri Lanka was called off a two weeks ago.

The two-Test series had been due to begin in Galle on 19 March, but was cancelled following the outbreak of coronavirus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/52042617

 

[Robert]

Stokes is not better than imran with the bat, but currently there stats with the bat are similar so let's not get carried away

Stokes is definitely better than Imran with the bat, and a much better catcher. Nowhere near as good with the ball, obviously.

 

[Mobashir]

Stokes is definitely better than Imran with the bat, and a much better catcher. Nowhere near as good with the ball, obviously.

Obviously Stokes is not as good as Imran as a bowler but he is so much underrated. His bowling is brilliant in test match cricket.
He has pace, swing, seam and is a very intelligent bowler.
He has bowled a lot of great spells already and won matches with the ball.

 

[Robert]

Obviously Stokes is not as good as Imran as a bowler but he is so much underrated. His bowling is brilliant in test match cricket.
He has pace, swing, seam and is a very intelligent bowler.
He has bowled a lot of great spells already and won matches with the ball.

But average 33 and only about 2.3 wickets per test. He would be picked purely as a batter but not purely as a bowler. Going forward I see him bowling less and batting more. He might come in for a fast spell if one of the specialists gets injured during a match.

 

[Dulex9]

Andrew Flintoff?

Ben Stokes best batsman out of the lot.

 

[Dulex9]

Then again Botham faced the great WI bowlers, IK, Hadlee, K Dev.

Flintoff faced McGrath, Warne/Donald, Pollock/Murali/Ambrose, Walsh?/Maybe even Wasim, Waqur

 

[jeetu]

England best AR's

Tests min 1000 runs , 100 wickets

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Player [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Runs [/td][td]Bat Avg [/td][td]100 [/td][td]Wkts [/td][td]Bowl Avg [/td][td]5W [/td][td]Ave Diff [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]AW Greig [/td][td]58 [/td][td]3599 [/td][td]40.43 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]141 [/td][td]32.2 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]8.23 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]IT Botham [/td][td]102 [/td][td]5200 [/td][td]33.54 [/td][td]14 [/td][td]383 [/td][td]28.4 [/td][td]27 [/td][td]5.14 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]BA Stokes [/td][td]63 [/td][td]4056 [/td][td]36.54 [/td][td]9 [/td][td]147 [/td][td]32.68 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]3.86 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]W Rhodes [/td][td]58 [/td][td]2325 [/td][td]30.19 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]127 [/td][td]26.96 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]3.22 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]TE Bailey [/td][td]61 [/td][td]2290 [/td][td]29.74 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]132 [/td][td]29.21 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]0.52 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]MW Tate [/td][td]39 [/td][td]1198 [/td][td]25.48 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]155 [/td][td]26.16 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]-0.67 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A Flintoff [/td][td]78 [/td][td]3795 [/td][td]31.89 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]219 [/td][td]33.34 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]-1.45 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]MM Ali [/td][td]60 [/td][td]2782 [/td][td]28.97 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]181 [/td][td]36.59 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]-7.61 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

ODI's (min 1000 runs , 50 wickets)
[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Player [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Runs [/td][td]Bat Av [/td][td]100 [/td][td]Wkts [/td][td]Bowl Av [/td][td]5W [/td][td]Ave Diff [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A Flintoff [/td][td]138 [/td][td]3293 [/td][td]31.97 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]168 [/td][td]23.61 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]8.35 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]BA Stokes [/td][td]95 [/td][td]2682 [/td][td]40.63 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]70 [/td][td]41.71 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]-1.07 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]PD Collingwood [/td][td]197 [/td][td]5092 [/td][td]35.36 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]111 [/td][td]38.68 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]-3.32 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]IT Botham [/td][td]116 [/td][td]2113 [/td][td]23.21 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]145 [/td][td]28.54 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]-5.32 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]CR Woakes [/td][td]101 [/td][td]1226 [/td][td]25.02 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]143 [/td][td]30.65 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]-5.63 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]MM Ali [/td][td]102 [/td][td]1783 [/td][td]25.84 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]85 [/td][td]48.6 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]-22.75 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

At present Stokes is on par with Tony Grieg in tests. But far behind Ian Botham still.

In ODI Stokes is best batsman among ODI AR , however he is statistically even behind Collingwood. Bowling Average of 40+ with less than 1 wicket per match is terrible.

 

[Robert]

At present Stokes is on par with Tony Grieg in tests. But far behind Ian Botham still.
.

I would agree with this. Both bat left and bowl right. Both very good batters under pressure, excellent catchers and decent change bowlers. I don’t see Stokes ever taking ten wickets in a match with off-breaks though.

 

[tyron_woodley]

stokes is a better batsman and has managed to take crucial wickets with the ball.

botham the better bowler but weaker batsman.

 

[Robert]

stokes is a better batsman and has managed to take crucial wickets with the ball.

botham the better bowler but weaker batsman.

Did you ever see Sir Ian bat?

 

[therealAB]

Today, what I witnessed was an all-time classic. Ben Stokes did it for England what Ian Botham failed to do in 1992(27 years ago). Not just the player of the match but he pretty much was the man of the tournament for England.

I will have Ben Stokes over Ian Botham.The man of this moment, arguably the greatest inning in ODI WC finals. Who would you pick between the two?

Discuss!

Ummm.

Jack Hobbs
Wally Hammond
Sydney Barnes
WG Grace
Len Hutton

5 cricketers clearly better than both Botham and Stokes

 

[Robert]

Ummm.

Jack Hobbs
Wally Hammond
Sydney Barnes
WG Grace
Len Hutton

5 cricketers clearly better than both Botham and Stokes

Perhaps the OP means post-WW2.

I would call Hammond England’s best player ever. As good a bat as there ever was barring Bradman, brilliant slip catcher and handy bowler too. Though he didn’t bowl himself much.

 

[Ted123]

Botham.

 

[Ab Fan]

If Stokes hasn't played bowlers of Windies and Pakistan of 80s, I would argue the 80s haven't played the Indian attack of Ashwin/Jadeja in Indian conditions.

I don't think Botham would have done well against current Indian side in India whose spinners are averaging about 20 in India and the fast bowlers are averaging under 25 in India as well. That Indian side of 80s didn't had a single quality spinner and only one good fast bowler. Indian setup has improved a lot from those days and the passion for game still is the same.

Australian attack is also better and South Africa have been there as well. Teams have gotten weaker away in alien conditions but I would say also gotten stronger at home.

 

[Asifnow]

If Stokes hasn't played bowlers of Windies and Pakistan of 80s, I would argue the 80s haven't played the Indian attack of Ashwin/Jadeja in Indian conditions.

I don't think Botham would have done well against current Indian side in India whose spinners are averaging about 20 in India and the fast bowlers are averaging under 25 in India as well. That Indian side of 80s didn't had a single quality spinner and only one good fast bowler. Indian setup has improved a lot from those days and the passion for game still is the same.

Australian attack is also better and South Africa have been there as well. Teams have gotten weaker away in alien conditions but I would say also gotten stronger at home.

The only time Stokes has played in India, he averaged 45 with the ball in tests....and no Indian bowler averaged less than 25, let alone 20 (Sharma had one game at 19). I think you're over doing things a bit.

Anyway, Stokes is not as good an all rounder as Botham, and probably isnt even as all round a player as Flintoff. But he has been exceptional in the last few years and been a big match game changer...mainly with the bat. I feel like he is a batsman who bowls a bit.

 

[Ab Fan]

The only time Stokes has played in India, he averaged 45 with the ball in tests....and no Indian bowler averaged less than 25, let alone 20 (Sharma had one game at 19). I think you're over doing things a bit.

Anyway, Stokes is not as good an all rounder as Botham, and probably isnt even as all round a player as Flintoff. But he has been exceptional in the last few years and been a big match game changer...mainly with the bat. I feel like he is a batsman who bowls a bit.

In India,

Ashwin averages 23
Jadeja- 21
Shami- 21
Umesh- 24

Indian all-round bowling in India in this era is leagues superior to what it was in 80s when India had Kapil Dev and three nobodies.

As far as the series is concerned, Stokes bowled well in that series on the flat Indian wickets. He was simply up against an Indian side which is an ATG in India and hence the stats skewed up. He also got a test century against that Indian attack in India. Remember I am saying, " in India" because they are actually that good in Indian conditions.

 

[tyron_woodley]

The only time Stokes has played in India, he averaged 45 with the ball in tests....and no Indian bowler averaged less than 25, let alone 20 (Sharma had one game at 19). I think you're over doing things a bit.

Anyway, Stokes is not as good an all rounder as Botham, and probably isnt even as all round a player as Flintoff. But he has been exceptional in the last few years and been a big match game changer...mainly with the bat. I feel like he is a batsman who bowls a bit.

are you dense? in India it's al2ays been the Indian gas bowlers and spinners than have averaged the best.

 

[Ab Fan]

80s era is overhyped.

I would say 90s era was toughest with the addition of South Africa and Sri Lanka becoming a force as well. India got stronger at home with Tendulkar and Kumble addition and Zimbabwe were also quite good.

 

[tyron_woodley]

80s era is overhyped.

I would say 90s era was toughest with the addition of South Africa and Sri Lanka becoming a force as well. India got stronger at home with Tendulkar and Kumble addition and Zimbabwe were also quite good.

2000 - to current era is the strongest
Now literally every top team is strong at home. Poor away ofcourse. India are just on another level in terms of home dominance whilst being competitive away on wickets not conducive to swing. They really need to practice some county games before touring England next time.