You are not comparing like with like.
A balanced all-rounder would have just under 100 Test wickets for every 1000 Test runs he took. Imran Khan scored 3800 Test runs and took 362 wickets, which is about right.
Stokes is a batting all-rounder like Sobers or Kallis - only capable of being the fourth bowler in an attack. After 61 Tests he has a terrific 4000 runs, but just a paltry 142 wickets.
The same is true of Flintoff: 4000 runs but only 226 wickets.
So they were a pair of superb Batting All-Rounders, to play at Number 6.
Chris Cairns scored 3300 runs in 61 Tests, but took his 219 wickets at a superior average (29, compared with Flintoff and Stokes bowling average of 33).
So Cairns is the only genuine all-rounder of the 3, the only one worth his place as a bowler as well as a Top 7 batsman.
In reality, three brilliant cricketers, but none was a top class balanced all-rounder like Imran or Kapil Dev or Mike Procter.
They were more like Eddie Barlow or Kallis or Sobers - batting all-rounders who could be a useful fourth or fifth bowler. But those three were superior batsmen to the current crop.
I agree and disagree at the same time
A balanced all rounder is one who is equally good in both his disciplines
Hed be one A) that can bat in the top 4 and open the bowling avge 50\20 or 45\25
Or B) bat at 6 and come on first change bowling avge 35\30
As there has hardly been anyone in history that can do A skilifully owing to how difficult it is then B is what is ideal
Hed score 60 runs per test and take 3.5 wkts per test Just under what a front line batter \ bowler would take
So 1750 runs for every 110 wkts in around 30 tests so after 60 tests hed have 3600 test runs and about 220 test wickets, after 100 tests 6000 runs and 350 test wkts
Imran khan wasnt balanced for most of his career he was a bowling allrounder with his bowling as good as any top class bowler of his time His batting improved with time but was never as good as the greats of his time unlike his bowling
On the other hand kallis was a batting all rounder who chipped away rougly 2 wkts per test but scored 70-80 runs per test in line with the great batters of his era
Both dont make the above criterias of balance
Therefore yes the comparison isnt right, Stokes even though his avge is more 30\30 is more of a batting all rounder he has 4000 runs in 60 tests but only 140 test wickets
He is someone in the kallis mould but a division or two behind the great man Hes someone who can chip away with a couple of wkts and give you 60 runs per test
whereas cairns and flintoff were more what i called
B, equally skilled between both disciplines of the game
