Ben Stokes versus Ian Botham - Greatest England cricketer ever?

[Robert]

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.

Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Holding, Imran, Qadir, Wasim later on, Botham, Kapil, Richards, Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, AB, Gooch, Gower, Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhar, Mianded were overhyped?

I think they were excellent.

 

[Robert]

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.

Ah, but defensive techniques are a lot worse now that they were in Sir Ian's time. He was an excellent player of spin, as good as the three Gs. Sir Ian saw big spin wickets in England and faced people like Underwood on them. So he learned to play good spin on spin wickets. Now the English wickets are homogenous slow seamers and the modern batters struggled when they see a good spinner.

Batters can play on their home wickets but get exposed overseas. Look at how India did the last time they were in England, Kohli apart. Yet Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhar etc. made big runs here.

Commensurately I am not sure that the current Indian ace spinners would do so well in the eighties against batsmen like the three Gs and Botham who could play in all conditions.

 

[Ab Fan]

Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Holding, Imran, Qadir, Wasim later on, Botham, Kapil, Richards, Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, AB, Gooch, Gower, Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhar, Mianded were overhyped?

I think they were excellent.

Other decades had better I would say. Gooch was mediocre till '89. Azhar was 90s star and he and Vengsarkar weren't anything special either. Gavaskar was at his peak in 70s mostly.

2000s- Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Steyn, Pollock, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Sangakkara, Gilchrist, Kumble, Hayden, Inzamam, Younis, Laxman, Sehwag, Pietersen, Flintoff, Shoaib, Smith

90s:- Tendulkar, Lara, Wasim, Waqar, Steve Waugh, Gooch, Warne, Murali, Kumble, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh,Pollock, de Silva, Mark Waugh, Anwar, Kirsten, Saqlain, Andy Flower, Stewart.

 

[Ab Fan]

Ah, but defensive techniques are a lot worse now that they were in Sir Ian's time. He was an excellent player of spin, as good as the three Gs. Sir Ian saw big spin wickets in England and faced people like Underwood on them. So he learned to play good spin on spin wickets. Now the English wickets are homogenous slow seamers and the modern batters struggled when they see a good spinner.

Batters can play on their home wickets but get exposed overseas. Look at how India did the last time they were in England, Kohli apart. Yet Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhar etc. made big runs here.

Commensurately I am not sure that the current Indian ace spinners would do so well in the eighties against batsmen like the three Gs and Botham who could play in all conditions.

Nope, Indian ace spinners will run through them in Indian conditions if they play today. They will fare better at home though.

Vengsarkar and Azhar are very good bats but nothing great. Laxman is clearly a lot better as far as tests are concerned. Incredibly brilliant under pressure and stood up against the best and in some unplayable conditions.

 

[Pakhs]

I think Ben Stokes has the ability to become the greatest every, greater even than Imran Khan. All he has got left to do is to win a WC as captain and improve slightly his numbers in tests.

 

[Robert]

Nope, Indian ace spinners will run through them in Indian conditions if they play today. They will fare better at home though.
.

What are you basing that on? I watched Ashwin in England and thought he was nothing special. Six tests and no fivefers. What do you recall of the batting techniques of the eighties players compared to those of today?

 

[Robert]

I think Ben Stokes has the ability to become the greatest every, greater even than Imran Khan. All he has got left to do is to win a WC as captain and improve slightly his numbers in tests.

He would have to average ten with the ball for the next sixty tests. Ain’t happening.

 

[Ab Fan]

What are you basing that on? I watched Ashwin in England and thought he was nothing special. Six tests and no fivefers. What do you recall of the batting techniques of the eighties players compared to those of today?

I said in Indian conditions. Look at how he got the better of peak AB and Amla in 2015 tour or Kane Williamson in '16 tour.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Ah, but defensive techniques are a lot worse now that they were in Sir Ian's time. He was an excellent player of spin, as good as the three Gs. Sir Ian saw big spin wickets in England and faced people like Underwood on them. So he learned to play good spin on spin wickets. Now the English wickets are homogenous slow seamers and the modern batters struggled when they see a good spinner.

Batters can play on their home wickets but get exposed overseas. Look at how India did the last time they were in England, Kohli apart. Yet Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhar etc. made big runs here.

Commensurately I am not sure that the current Indian ace spinners would do so well in the eighties against batsmen like the three Gs and Botham who could play in all conditions.

they would piece them up in Asian conditions comfortably. Rememever they play t20 and other bullsh*t games like franchise leagues etc as well. Players these days have to focus on multiple formats making it much harder to focus on the most important format I.e. tests.

if modern era players focused purely on test and odi like in the 80s they would beat them comfortably. You can't compare era's.

 

[khan_aa]

I would say Stokes has won more matches and just last year's performances will add him to the elite club.

He single handedly won the WC final for England and then the ashes test...I dont think those performances will ever be replicated.

 

[Robert]

they would piece them up in Asian conditions comfortably. Rememever they play t20 and other bullsh*t games like franchise leagues etc as well. Players these days have to focus on multiple formats making it much harder to focus on the most important format I.e. tests.

if modern era players focused purely on test and odi like in the 80s they would beat them comfortably. You can't compare era's.

But you can compare how players do home and away in their own era and infer whether they had a game for all wickets and conditions or not.

I wonder how Ashwin would go in India against long-innings men with a good technique against spinners like the Three Gs. He averaged 52 in the series where he faced similarly skilled batters Cook and Pietersen.

 

[Pakhs]

He would have to average ten with the ball for the next sixty tests. Ain’t happening.

He may fall just short but he is one of the best allrounders in the world and definitely better than Kallis who was mainly just a batsmen.

 

[tyron_woodley]

But you can compare how players do home and away in their own era and infer whether they had a game for all wickets and conditions or not.

I wonder how Ashwin would go in India against long-innings men with a good technique against spinners like the Three Gs. He averaged 52 in the series where he faced similarly skilled batters Cook and Pietersen.

that was a pre prime ashwin vs a peak cook. ofcourse he would struggle. As win was no where near his best. He was a newbie at the time.

 

[Robert]

that was a pre prime ashwin vs a peak cook. ofcourse he would struggle. As win was no where near his best. He was a newbie at the time.

Seems unlikely, given that Ashwin was the quickest to 100 wickets in over eighty years.

Seems more likely to me that Pietersen and Cook were the last of the batters who could play spin really well and nobody coming to India since has their skill.

 

[Ab Fan]

Seems unlikely, given that Ashwin was the quickest to 100 wickets in over eighty years.

Seems more likely to me that Pietersen and Cook were the last of the batters who could play spin really well and nobody coming to India since has their skill.

AB and Amla had skills of equivalence to KP and Cook and Ashwin averaged 10 against them.

 

[Asifnow]

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.

We're talking about India playing against England, I am not too bothered what their numbers look like vs minnows and weaker sides. Your example was that Botham would not be able to play against spinners who average 20 or 25...that hasn't happened against England. Umesh Yadav averages over 40 against England...you think Botham can't play him?

Cmon fella! Lets not get corny.

 

[Ab Fan]

<B>We're talking about India playing against England</B>, I am not too bothered what their numbers look like vs minnows and weaker sides. <B>Your example was that Botham would not be able to play against spinners who average 20 or 25</B>...that hasn't happened against England. Umesh Yadav averages over 40 against England...you think Botham can't play him?

Cmon fella! Lets not get corny.

Really, so you know what I am stating and I don't know that?

I would repeat again, in Indian conditions, I am not sure of Botham surviving in this era against Ashwin, Jadeja, Shami and Umesh/Ishant. I am also not sure if Botham can run through the current Indian side in India the way he ran through Indian side of 80s in India? He will in England but I doubt if he can in India.

You don't base your conclusion of a player on how he did in a particular series but it's his overall performance in those conditions. And Indian spinners and fast bowlers all have delivered ATG level performance in India in past 5 years which is why India have a record of some 22-1 at home in past 5 years which other teams can only dream of right now.

 

[Ab Fan]

*And India's 22-1 win or whatever the number is haven't come only vs Windies and BD and SL, there have been plenty of wins vs SENA.

 

[Saurav]

Seems unlikely, given that Ashwin was the quickest to 100 wickets in over eighty years.

Seems more likely to me that Pietersen and Cook were the last of the batters who could play spin really well and nobody coming to India since has their skill.

Ashwin had played only 8 Tests before that series

 

[tyron_woodley]

Seems unlikely, given that Ashwin was the quickest to 100 wickets in over eighty years.

Seems more likely to me that Pietersen and Cook were the last of the batters who could play spin really well and nobody coming to India since has their skill.

he already destroyed amla and abd who are even better players of spin. ohja and other crap played in 2012. Was a past it side. That's the only reason they lost. All these old cronies kept playing well past their expiry date.

 

[tyron_woodley]

We're talking about India playing against England, I am not too bothered what their numbers look like vs minnows and weaker sides. Your example was that Botham would not be able to play against spinners who average 20 or 25...that hasn't happened against England. Umesh Yadav averages over 40 against England...you think Botham can't play him?

Cmon fella! Lets not get corny.

2016. 4 0 phainta. ashwin and jaddu wrecked England.

 

[Robert]

he already destroyed amla and abd who are even better players of spin. ohja and other crap played in 2012. Was a past it side. That's the only reason they lost. All these old cronies kept playing well past their expiry date.

Ohja outperformed Ashwin in that series.

Tendulkar was certainly a passenger by then, playing for records.

It’s just interesting that England prospered on spin wickets - Cook, Pietersen and latterly Bell.

 

[Robert]

Really, so you know what I am stating and I don't know that?

I would repeat again, in Indian conditions, I am not sure of Botham surviving in this era against Ashwin, Jadeja, Shami and Umesh/Ishant. I am also not sure if Botham can run through the current Indian side in India the way he ran through Indian side of 80s in India? He will in England but I doubt if he can in India.

You don't base your conclusion of a player on how he did in a particular series but it's his overall performance in those conditions. And Indian spinners and fast bowlers all have delivered ATG level performance in India in past 5 years which is why India have a record of some 22-1 at home in past 5 years which other teams can only dream of right now.

Given that the Indian teams Sir Ian ran through featured several players with County jobs who could play seam and swing, and the current crew cannot (Kohli apart), I think a Botham would get *more* wickets now.

 

[Ted123]

Given that the Indian teams Sir Ian ran through featured several players with County jobs who could play seam and swing, and the current crew cannot (Kohli apart), I think a Botham would get *more* wickets now.

But one doesn't have to play county to score runs in India. I think he is talking about Indian conditions.

 

[Ab Fan]

Given that the Indian teams Sir Ian ran through featured several players with County jobs who could play seam and swing, and the current crew cannot (Kohli apart), I think a Botham would get *more* wickets now.

Botham may get more wickets at his home which I would care least about. Even Jimmy gets plenty at his home.

But it's unlikely that Botham would be able to run through current Indian lineup considering that Mayank and Rohit were smashing double centuries for fun vs an attack of Kagiso Rabada and Vernon Philander recently.

When Rabada and Philander is getting smashed apart, I am not too sure if Botham stands a chance really. He would probably be averaging about 25 at home and 32-33 away in this era.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Botham may get more wickets at his home which I would care least about. Even Jimmy gets plenty at his home.

But it's unlikely that Botham would be able to run through current Indian lineup considering that Mayank and Rohit were smashing double centuries for fun vs an attack of Kagiso Rabada and Vernon Philander recently.

When Rabada and Philander is getting smashed apart, I am not too sure if Botham stands a chance really. He would probably be averaging about 25 at home and 32-33 away in this era.

let alone philander and rabada, no team beats this indian side in India. 1999- 2003 GOAT aussie side would get flattened.

in home conditions this team is just incredibly powerful.

a strong aussie team in 2017 lost despite having the best possible prepartion in u.a.e and practice games plus borrowed soil to train specifically for an Indian tour.

 

[Ab Fan]

let alone philander and rabada, no team beats this indian side in India. 1999- 2003 GOAT aussie side would get flattened.

in home conditions this team is just incredibly powerful.

a strong aussie team in 2017 lost despite having the best possible prepartion in u.a.e and practice games plus borrowed soil to train specifically for an Indian tour.

Agreed completely. Botham did well in India in 80s because that Indian batting was weak. I don't think he stands a chance against this Indian side considering that Agarwal and Sharma are smashing double hundreds for fun vs Rabada and Philander who are much potent attack than any England had after Bob Willis.

For India to lose 1 test in that 22-1 record or something, Australia had to come up with so much preparation. That tells us all we have to know.

 

[Robert]

Agreed completely. Botham did well in India in 80s because that Indian batting was weak. I don't think he stands a chance against this Indian side considering that Agarwal and Sharma are smashing double hundreds for fun vs Rabada and Philander who are much potent attack than any England had after Bob Willis.

Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar were weak? I think they would walk into the current Indian team.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar were weak? I think they would walk into the current Indian team.

yea but look at the bowling, fielding and I doubt thos3 3 would get in based on how unfit they were on the field plus the workload of having to play 3 formats will make it even more difficult for them. In Asian conditions the current crop would steamroll any team anytime unless they decline now which doesn't look like happening.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Agreed completely. Botham did well in India in 80s because that Indian batting was weak. I don't think he stands a chance against this Indian side considering that Agarwal and Sharma are smashing double hundreds for fun vs Rabada and Philander who are much potent attack than any England had after Bob Willis.

For India to lose 1 test in that 22-1 record or something, Australia had to come up with so much preparation. That tells us all we have to know.

just imagine if india actually prperapre for an Aussie tour in that manner rofl. I am sure india could win the away series again. Too bad india has a much bigger workload than other countries.

 

[Ab Fan]

Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar were weak? I think they would walk into the current Indian team.

Gavaskar
Mayank
Pujara
Kohli
Vishy
Vengsarkar
Kapil
Saha(wkt)
Ashwin
Shami/Ishant
Bumrah

So It's 7-4 .

 

[Ab Fan]

Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar were weak? I think they would walk into the current Indian team.

An England combined XI will be

Gooch
Boycott
Gower
Root
Stokes
Botham
Bairstow (wkt)
Archer
Broad
Anderson
Underwood

It's again 6-5 current England side.

 

[therealAB]

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.

Would be remembered more if he didn't play at the same time as Bradman. Same with Headley

 

[gazza619]

Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Holding, Imran, Qadir, Wasim later on, Botham, Kapil, Richards, Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, AB, Gooch, Gower, Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhar, Mianded were overhyped?

I think they were excellent.

I personally dont like comparing eras.

Would the WI bowlers from 80s have been as deadly with the two bouncers in one over rule? Or would the modern batsman have played with the same flair on the poor quality pitches of the past?

How do we know if Gavaskar wouldnt have been James Anderson’s bunny or if Ricky Ponting would have struggled against Garner. We just dont know.

 

[Robert]

An England combined XI will be

Gooch
Boycott
Gower
Root
Stokes
Botham
Bairstow (wkt)
Archer
Broad
Anderson
Underwood

It's again 6-5 current England side.

Gooch
Boycott
Gower
Pietersen
Thorpe
Botham
Knott (w)
Swann
Gough
Willis
Underwood

 

[Robert]

I personally dont like comparing eras.

Would the WI bowlers from 80s have been as deadly with the two bouncers in one over rule? Or would the modern batsman have played with the same flair on the poor quality pitches of the past?

How do we know if Gavaskar wouldnt have been James Anderson’s bunny or if Ricky Ponting would have struggled against Garner. We just dont know.

I think a champion would still be a champion. However by and large modern batters have loose defensive techniques and IMO would get out bowled and lbw a lot to the Lillees, Hadlees and Marshalls who were very accurate and moved it both ways.

 

[Ab Fan]

Gooch
Boycott
Gower
Pietersen
Thorpe
Botham
Knott (w)
Swann
Gough
Willis
Underwood

I meant the ones from 80s and the England team predominantly of last five six years.

Knott and Willis were 70s hero, Thrope 90s, Pietersen and Swann 2000s to early 10s. That was what we were comparing.

But even here you find a lot of modern era players. Root with a strong shot at 5. And in England, Jimmy in for Swann.

 

[tyron_woodley]

I think a champion would still be a champion. However by and large modern batters have loose defensive techniques and IMO would get out bowled and lbw a lot to the Lillees, Hadlees and Marshalls who were very accurate and moved it both ways.

or maybe modern players will observe them and analyze their strength in detail and eventually negate their skills due to advanced technology. Works both ways. Players will get figured out easily in modern era. 2 bouncer rules make a huge difference. Different balls too I would assume. More padded protection.

Bowlers of modern era are better imo than the past due to bowling in a batting friendlier era.

batsmen of the past may have better techniques I agree for test cricket but modern players have to focus across multiple formats. I am certain great players from current era would adapt and be known as greats in any era. If they focus purely on test and odi like the old times there is no doubt in my mind that great players from current era would emerge on top.

Players are very likely to evolve with time. That's why I hate these comparisons to different era's.

80s greats were great in 80s.

post 2000 till about now would be a reasonable comparison but even then the non existence of drs, no ball umpires, advanced technology that is available post 2010 (yes look at the lbw review system of 2006 ish vs now. it's a joke) .makes it difficult to compare.

Too many rubbish decisions went in favour of teams like australia in 2000 era due to them being a popular side across the globe. Their dominance is questionable. Lot of times they never played inn the spirit of the game.

Even England in 05 vs australia utilized several drink breaks after each spell to give their top bowlers ample rest to recover. Only Simon Jones was genuinely injured. Rest were just mucking around on the field and decided to get extra rest before they bowled the next spell.

 

[Robert]

or maybe modern players will observe them and analyze their strength in detail and eventually negate their skills due to advanced technology. Works both ways. Players will get figured out easily in modern era. 2 bouncer rules make a huge difference. Different balls too I would assume. More padded protection.

Bowlers of modern era are better imo than the past due to bowling in a batting friendlier era.

batsmen of the past may have better techniques I agree for test cricket but modern players have to focus across multiple formats. I am certain great players from current era would adapt and be known as greats in any era. If they focus purely on test and odi like the old times there is no doubt in my mind that great players from current era would emerge on top.

Players are very likely to evolve with time. That's why I hate these comparisons to different era's.

80s greats were great in 80s.

post 2000 till about now would be a reasonable comparison but even then the non existence of drs, no ball umpires, advanced technology that is available post 2010 (yes look at the lbw review system of 2006 ish vs now. it's a joke) .makes it difficult to compare.

Too many rubbish decisions went in favour of teams like australia in 2000 era due to them being a popular side across the globe. Their dominance is questionable. Lot of times they never played inn the spirit of the game.

Even England in 05 vs australia utilized several drink breaks after each spell to give their top bowlers ample rest to recover. Only Simon Jones was genuinely injured. Rest were just mucking around on the field and decided to get extra rest before they bowled the next spell.

Bowlers who played at County level got worked out a bit by the top England batters because they played them so much.

Teams who are on top rend to have a sort of unconscious confirmation bias by the umps, in 2005 England were getting the marginal decision in their favour because they were creating more chances and screwing pressure down.

 

[Robert]

I meant the ones from 80s and the England team predominantly of last five six years.

Knott and Willis were 70s hero, Thrope 90s, Pietersen and Swann 2000s to early 10s. That was what we were comparing.

But even here you find a lot of modern era players. Root with a strong shot at 5. And in England, Jimmy in for Swann.

Willis got 40% of his wickets in the eighties and had a good record in India so I am keeping him

I thought we were talking about playing in India. I which case I will have:

Boycott
Gooch
Gatting
Gower
Root
Botham
Moeen
Foakes (w) as there was no standout keeper from the eighties
Edmonds
Willis
Dukerson for want of anyone better

 

[Ab Fan]

Willis got 40% of his wickets in the eighties and had a good record in India so I am keeping him

I thought we were talking about playing in India. I which case I will have:

Boycott
Gooch
Gatting
Gower
Root
Botham
Moeen
Foakes (w) as there was no standout keeper from the eighties
Edmonds
Willis
Dukerson for want of anyone better

I would consider dropping Gatting and probably have some Stokes in life to ensure the game isnt over until its over. Also Edmonds is there just because Leach or Bess are unproven for now or maybe Archer can be the man, you never know. We will only know 10 years from now.

I think you can go with Bairstow as he had a decent test career as a keeper batsmen with six centuries to his name and about 4000 test runs. Influence of ODI and his poor atitude has cost him a place but he still had a decent career with fairly decent numbers.

Gooch
Boycott
Gower
Roooooot
Stokes
Botham
Bairstow (wkt)
Edmonds/ Leach
Archer
Willis
Dukerson/Broad

 

[gazza619]

I think a champion would still be a champion. However by and large modern batters have loose defensive techniques and IMO would get out bowled and lbw a lot to the Lillees, Hadlees and Marshalls who were very accurate and moved it both ways.

As you rightly said a champion would still be a champion. Going by this logic I think the modern batsman would have adapted against the Lillees, Hadlees and Marshalls of the past.

The reason why these modern guns are too loose on defense is because they can currently get away with it. Put them in a time machine and send them to the 80’s, they might fail in the first year but then would adapt and play like the champions that they are.

Thats how we humans are. We adapt.

 

[Ted123]

Stokes is good but Botham on a different level.

 

[Manunited18]

I'm sorry but this really is a silly comparison, botham is arguably one of the greatest cricketers that's ever been so let's end the comparison there

 

[Robert]

I'm sorry but this really is a silly comparison, botham is arguably one of the greatest cricketers that's ever been so let's end the comparison there

Getting to the line in a WC final is more important to some than being the world’s leading wicket taker.

 

[MenInG]

Ian Botham on On Flintoff vs Stokes:

Ben (Stokes) is better than a mile to Freddy. Ben Stokes is the closest version of me, he plays like me with his heart on his sleeve. Flintoff was good but Stokes is just exceptional. He is the best cricketer in the world now.



https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...-ian-botham/articleshow/76056729.cms?from=mdr

 

[Robert]

Ian Botham on On Flintoff vs Stokes:

Ben (Stokes) is better than a mile to Freddy. Ben Stokes is the closest version of me, he plays like me with his heart on his sleeve. Flintoff was good but Stokes is just exceptional. He is the best cricketer in the world now.



https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...-ian-botham/articleshow/76056729.cms?from=mdr

I agree. Stokes’ batting is on a par with Botham’s now though he will never take 250 wickets let alone 373.

 

[jeetu]

Stokes is lucky to follow Anderson and Broad and now Archer. Botham had less support in comparison. As a Test bowler he is still far behind Botham. Botham had 27 5W in 102 tests . Stokes till now has 4 5W in 63 tests. That is a massive difference.

 

[Robert]

Stokes is lucky to follow Anderson and Broad and now Archer. Botham had less support in comparison. As a Test bowler he is still far behind Botham. Botham had 27 5W in 102 tests . Stokes till now has 4 5W in 63 tests. That is a massive difference.

He had Willis for his first sixty tests, who was better than any current England bowler.

 

[Ab Fan]

There is really no comparison between Stokes and Botham as bowlers in any format.

Flintoff is a level below Botham as a test bowler and Stokes is a level below Freddy. So, overall, Stokes is two levels below Botham as test bowler.

As a batsmen, Botham is a level below Stokes IMO as Stokes on his day has a Thorpe/Gower ceiling. Flintoff is a level below Botham as batsmen.

 

[Robert]

There is really no comparison between Stokes and Botham as bowlers in any format.

Flintoff is a level below Botham as a test bowler and Stokes is a level below Freddy. So, overall, Stokes is two levels below Botham as test bowler.

As a batsmen, Botham is a level below Stokes IMO as Stokes on his day has a Thorpe/Gower ceiling. Flintoff is a level below Botham as batsmen.

Botham had a Gooch/Gower ceiling, he just didn’t get there.

Perhaps the second half of Stokes career will be what Botham’s second half should have been - test average 45, chipping in with wickets, and still taking brilliant catches.

 

[therealAB]

Both great, Botha’s greater so far due to his peak.
Neither in the conversation for the best England player. Is has to be one of:
Barnes
Hutton
WG
Hammond
Hobbs
and much less likely Trueman

 

[Robert]

Both great, Botha’s greater so far due to his peak.
Neither in the conversation for the best England player. Is has to be one of:
Barnes
Hutton
WG
Hammond
Hobbs
and much less likely Trueman

I would say Hammond - arguably the greatest England batter, and in his day second only to Bradman. Add the test wickets he took and all the brilliant catches.

 

[therealAB]

I would say Hammond - arguably the greatest England batter, and in his day second only to Bradman. Add the test wickets he took and all the brilliant catches.

For me he is the 3rd after WG and the master Hobbs

 

[Robert]

For me he is the 3rd after WG and the master Hobbs

Hard to say what WGG was like. Certainly the best cricketer of the nineteenth century, and the first international sports superstar.

 

[therealAB]

Hard to say what WGG was like. Certainly the best cricketer of the nineteenth century, and the first international sports superstar.

For me there is a difference between the greatest and the best, and WG is the greatest, being the only competitor to Bradman as the greatest batsman of all time. Hammond likely the best though

 

[Hasan123]

Stokes is special but I think Botham was on another level.

 

[shamaan]

Stokes is special but I think Botham was on another level.

When stokes finishes his career he will be ATG player

 

[Hasan123]

When stokes finishes his career he will be ATG player

No doubt about that.

 

[Robert]

For me there is a difference between the greatest and the best, and WG is the greatest, being the only competitor to Bradman as the greatest batsman of all time. Hammond likely the best though

Curious - WGG played in a time before swing bowling and googlies. While he was certainly the best of his era, I am unsure how that would translate to the modern game. Though with his gift for self-promotion would be a hit in the T20 franchises.

 

[Ab Fan]

One year completion of Ben Stokes ATG knock in World Cup finals.

Undoubtedly, the greatest cricketer to have played for England in last 50 years.

 

[tyron_woodley]

stokes is one of the greatest all rounders of all time. He is in my top 3.

botham was a better bowler but stokes will overtake him in batting imo when he retires.

 

[therealAB]

Neither of them are top 5 English cricketers
Hammond
Hobbs
Hutton
WG
Barnes

Are all clearly ahead of both of them. They are both obviously very good though

 

[Ab Fan]

stokes is one of the greatest all rounders of all time. He is in my top 3.

botham was a better bowler but stokes will overtake him in batting imo when he retires.

I agree. Time has come to give him the credit he deserves. He is only behind Sobers, Miller, Kallis and the 80s quartet as all-rounder and ahead of Cairns, Flintoff and Greig.

Holder, Shakib and Jadeja are good as well but not as good as Stokes.

 

[Robert]

I agree. Time has come to give him the credit he deserves. He is only behind Sobers, Miller, Kallis and the 80s quartet as all-rounder and ahead of Cairns, Flintoff and Greig.

Holder, Shakib and Jadeja are good as well but not as good as Stokes.

I think he is most comparable to Greig who was also a batting allrounder. Average 40 with the bat, 33 with the ball, and excellent catcher.

I think Stokes will bowl less and bat more as time goes on. He is capable of getting 15-18 test centuries and 225 test wickets if he kicks on.

 

[Ab Fan]

I think he is most comparable to Greig who was also a batting allrounder. Average 40 with the bat, 33 with the ball, and excellent catcher.

I think Stokes will bowl less and bat more as time goes on. He is capable of getting 15-18 test centuries and 225 test wickets if he kicks on.

That should be enough to put him in ATG tier.

But he is 29 only, so 5 years of test cricket means about 50 tests and roughly 100 wickets (assuming 2 wkts/match). I see about 8000 runs and 250 wickets there for taking for Stokes.

 

[Ab Fan]

I think he is most comparable to Greig who was also a batting allrounder. Average 40 with the bat, 33 with the ball, and excellent catcher.

I think Stokes will bowl less and bat more as time goes on. He is capable of getting 15-18 test centuries and 225 test wickets if he kicks on.

Another point is that Stokes is a match winner with the bowl as well. Delivers when matters. So, he is precisely a genuine all-rounder. 250 wickets don't match well to Botham's 380 but I see Stokes getting to 8000 runs while Botham had just about 5K test runs.

 

[Robert]

Another point is that Stokes is a match winner with the bowl as well. Delivers when matters. So, he is precisely a genuine all-rounder. 250 wickets don't match well to Botham's 380 but I see Stokes getting to 8000 runs while Botham had just about 5K test runs.

Not a match winner with the ball. He chips in with one or two wickets at key moments rather than running through sides like Botham taking six, seven wickets or the famous five-for-one burst.

 

[Ab Fan]

Not a match winner with the ball. <B>He chips in with one or two wickets at key moments</B> rather than running through sides like Botham taking six, seven wickets or the famous five-for-one burst.

That's exactly the job of a genuine all-rounder.

 

[Robert]

That's exactly the job of a genuine all-rounder.

A “genuine all rounder” is a strike bowler at test level. Stokes wouldn’t get into the side for his bowling alone. He’s a test fourth seamer. Think of Miller, Imran, Botham, Kapil. They were all good enough to play as batters alone or bowlers alone.

 

[Ab Fan]

A “genuine all rounder” is a strike bowler at test level. Stokes wouldn’t get into the side for his bowling alone. He’s a test fourth seamer. Think of Miller, Imran, Botham, Kapil. They were all good enough to play as batters alone or bowlers alone.

Does Sobers get into the side for his bowling alone?

If Yes, then Stokes definitely does.

 

[tyron_woodley]

stokes is the better batsman.
botham the better bowler.
period.

 

[therealAB]

stokes is the better batsman.
botham the better bowler.
period.

The difference between their bowling is much, much greater than the difference between their batting. Botham had a period where he was the no1 bowler in the world, stokes has never had that with his batting

 

[tyron_woodley]

The difference between their bowling is much, much greater than the difference between their batting. Botham had a period where he was the no1 bowler in the world, stokes has never had that with his batting

true but competition is stiffer now and botham played under different rules.

 

[Robert]

Does Sobers get into the side for his bowling alone?

If Yes, then Stokes definitely does.

Sobers did originally get into the WI side for his bowling alone.

He was first picked as a SLA who batted at #8. From that position he developed within four years into the world’s leading batsman.

He could also open the bowling with fasting left arm swing and took fivefers that way, returning in the second innings to bowl spin.

He was more effective as a pace bowler but usually came on as second spinner behind Gibbs. Basically he fitted into whatever shape WI needed with the ball.

He played through the super flat wickets of the sixties when the top bowlers averaged 26-28 and strike rates were low generally.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

A “genuine all rounder” is a strike bowler at test level. Stokes wouldn’t get into the side for his bowling alone. He’s a test fourth seamer. Think of Miller, Imran, Botham, Kapil. They were all good enough to play as batters alone or bowlers alone.

No, those are bowling allrounders. Kallis is a genuine allrounder too.

 

[Ab Fan]

This thread was made just to give a boost to Stokes performance in that finals. But it seems it has come a long way.

Over a period of exact one year, Stokes has received the player of the series title in Ashes 2019 in which he played one of the greatest test innings of all-time and the England series win in South Africa apart from being awarded the 'Man of Finals' in WC 2019.

He was a strong contender for player of tournament as well but they had to award something to Kiwis for their spectacular performance in the semis and finals, so went with Kane Williamson.

Looks like we are in for more of this in the coming days.

 

[Ab Fan]

Sobers did originally get into the WI side for his bowling alone.

He was first picked as a SLA who batted at #8. From that position he developed within four years into the world’s leading batsman.

He could also open the bowling with fasting left arm swing and took fivefers that way, returning in the second innings to bowl spin.

He was more effective as a pace bowler but usually came on as second spinner behind Gibbs. Basically he fitted into whatever shape WI needed with the ball.

He played through the super flat wickets of the sixties when the top bowlers averaged 26-28 and strike rates were low generally.

Sobers opened the bowling into a very weak WI side which didn't had any great bowler. I have seen scenarios where Stokes has looked better and more effective with the bowl than a couple of their main bowlers and not just once but time and again.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Sobers did originally get into the WI side for his bowling alone.

He was first picked as a SLA who batted at #8. From that position he developed within four years into the world’s leading batsman.

He could also open the bowling with fasting left arm swing and took fivefers that way, returning in the second innings to bowl spin.

He was more effective as a pace bowler but usually came on as second spinner behind Gibbs. Basically he fitted into whatever shape WI needed with the ball.

He played through the super flat wickets of the sixties when the top bowlers averaged 26-28 and strike rates were low generally.

Sobers had a str rate of 92, that pretty much settles the debate for me.

 

[Robert]

Sobers opened the bowling into a very weak WI side which didn't had any great bowler. I have seen scenarios where Stokes has looked better and more effective with the bowl than a couple of their main bowlers and not just once but time and again.

Wes Hall wasn’t great? I would call him the best fast bowler of the 1960s.

“Their main bowlers” average 28 and Stokes 33 so “time and time again“ seems like an exaggeration. “Now and then” would be more accurate.