How do Ben Stokes and Shakib Al Hasan compare with the 80s golden quartet all-rounders?

[SLcric123]

In the current era, Stokes and Shakib are without a doubt the best genuine all-rounders of this era.

How do you compare them with the 80s quartet all-rounders- Imran, Hadlee, Botham and Kapil?

Discuss!

 

[Shoaib88]

My honest and unpopular opinion, the fast bowlers of past era are overrated. Yes I have said it! I believe the current group of fast bowlers, globally, are better than the ones from 80's (P.S I am talking about globally collectively).

So back to your question, Ben Stokes and Shakib-Al-Hasan are miles ahead in terms of all rounders skills than the 80s global quartet all rounders you have mentiones.

 

[Harpoon]

My honest and unpopular opinion, the fast bowlers of past era are overrated. Yes I have said it! I believe the current group of fast bowlers, globally, are better than the ones from 80's (P.S I am talking about globally collectively).

It is obvious from your comment that you have not watched cricket in both the 80s and now. If you had, i highly doubt you would make the above statement.

 

[Rana]

In the current era, Stokes and Shakib are without a doubt the best genuine all-rounders of this era.

How do you compare them with the 80s quartet all-rounders- Imran, Hadlee, Botham and Kapil?

Discuss!

Stokes the batsman is world class. His bowling is ok, nothing amazing. I believe the All-rounders of the 80s were elite bowling options for their teams also. Ben Stokes would never open the bowling and portray himself as the strike bowler of any side. Botham, Imran, Hadlee and Kapil were strike bowlers. Stokes is a better batsman than all of them for sure.

I think you can compare Flintoff to those 4 names but not stokes, stokes can be compared to Kallis, who was an elite batsman like him but was better. His bowling was 3rd, 4th seamer level but he was successful in this department also.

Shakib is a bit different. He’s not had the Test match success to be considered in this discussion. If he had a bowling average below 30 in Tests, it would be fair to compare them to the legendary all-rounders of the past. However one could argue that the legends of 30 years later were superior batsmen to the all-rounders of the past

It’s a hard topic and not so easily dismissed due to the names of players

 

[Robert]

They are as good with the bat.

But the eighties aces were opening bowlers who would run through sides on a regular basis. Stokes can’t do that, and Shakib won’t outside the Subcontinent.

 

[Ab Fan]

Very hard to compare across eras but Stokes is certainly on his way to reach Kapil level by the time he retires. As a cricketer, he is already ahead or will sooner be ahead of Cairns, Flintoff and Shakib in test cricket and can reach to Kapil level but will remain behind Imran, Kallis, Botham and Hadlee(not a genuine AR).

As a batsmen, he is better than all four.

Stokes
Botham
Kapil/Imran
Hadlee

As a bowler, he is behind all four and also behind Cairns.

Hadlee/Imran
Botham/Kapil
Cairns
Stokes

Shakib is an excellent test all-rounder as well but a level below Stokes. He is better in ODIs though being more consistent and more all-round.

 

[Rana]

Flintoff is a legendary status all-rounder who didn’t play enough, and doesn’t have a World Cup runners/up winners medal to be considered in the list of the elite names mentioned of the 80s

 

[Robert]

Very hard to compare across eras but Stokes is certainly on his way to reach Kapil level by the time he retires.

Stokes will get nowhere near 400 wickets like Kapil. He might get to 225.

Kapil got two centuries against WI - Stokes has never faced bowling that good. I always felt that Kapil could average 40+ in tests in that very hard era, but he hammered along at 80 runs per hundred balls which is superfast even now. Compare KP and Root, fast scoring modern batters going at 60 / 100.

 

[Robert]

Flintoff is a legendary status all-rounder who didn’t play enough, and doesn’t have a World Cup runners/up winners medal to be considered in the list of the elite names mentioned of the 80s

He was only a test all-rounder for about three years. Otherwise he didn’t produce enough runs or wickets or both. Five test centuries and three fivefers. Compare with Botham’s 14 centuries and 27 fivefers. Good ODI player though.

 

[SLcric123]

Stokes will get nowhere near 400 wickets like Kapil. He might get to 225.

Kapil got two centuries against WI - Stokes has never faced bowling that good. I always felt that Kapil could average 40+ in tests in that very hard era, but he hammered along at 80 runs per hundred balls which is superfast even now. Compare KP and Root, fast scoring modern batters going at 60 / 100.

Kapil had eight hundreds in 130 tests, Stokes has 9 in 60 tests and should end with 15+ hundreds IMO.

 

[jnaveen1980]

THey were all opening bowlers. They were the best bowlers of their side except may be Botham when Willis as around. They were key batsmen as well lower down the order. Kapil dev was one of the best fielder too. Stokes is a good batsman, terrific fielder. As a bowler he is not even 3rd best in his side. Shakib is probably the best bowler of his side. But that is mostly because others were crap.

 

[SLcric123]

Stokes the batsman is world class. His bowling is ok, nothing amazing. I believe the All-rounders of the 80s were elite bowling options for their teams also. Ben Stokes would never open the bowling and portray himself as the strike bowler of any side. Botham, Imran, Hadlee and Kapil were strike bowlers. Stokes is a better batsman than all of them for sure.

I think you can compare Flintoff to those 4 names but not stokes, stokes can be compared to Kallis, who was an elite batsman like him but was better. His bowling was 3rd, 4th seamer level but he was successful in this department also.

Shakib is a bit different. He’s not had the Test match success to be considered in this discussion. If he had a bowling average below 30 in Tests, it would be fair to compare them to the legendary all-rounders of the past. However one could argue that the legends of 30 years later were superior batsmen to the all-rounders of the past

It’s a hard topic and not so easily dismissed due to the names of players

Flintoff had only 3 5-fers and 5 test hundreds.

 

[light]

I haven't watched alot of cricket in the 80's considering I did not exist back then LOL, I can only make my statement through the highlights that I have seen (which doesn't generally tell the bigger picture) and numbers doesn't always tell the full story, JUST LOOK AT JADEJA - enough said.

Anyways, from what I have seen, both Stokes/Shakib are way better batsmen than the previous allrounders mentioned above. However bowling wise, I think those above mentioned were better.

Also when it comes to Shakib its a double edge sword. He plays for a team where he is surrounded by mediocre/below par level player. One could argue that since he plays for a weak team, stronger teams plans around him, plays out his overs instead of attacking him/plans heavily on how to get him out fast. But you could also argue that since he plays for a weaker team, his numbers doesn't do justice to his name. Stokes have it easier since he plays for a very strong team, everyone can chip in so his numbers reflects his true nature.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I haven't watched alot of cricket in the 80's considering I did not exist back then LOL, I can only make my statement through the highlights that I have seen (which doesn't generally tell the bigger picture) and numbers doesn't always tell the full story, JUST LOOK AT JADEJA - enough said.

Anyways, from what I have seen, both Stokes/Shakib are way better batsmen than the previous allrounders mentioned above. However bowling wise, I think those above mentioned were better.

Also when it comes to Shakib its a double edge sword. He plays for a team where he is surrounded by mediocre/below par level player. One could argue that since he plays for a weak team, stronger teams plans around him, plays out his overs instead of attacking him/plans heavily on how to get him out fast. But you could also argue that since he plays for a weaker team, his numbers doesn't do justice to his name. Stokes have it easier since he plays for a very strong team, everyone can chip in so his numbers reflects his true nature.

Shakib probably is a better batsman than Hadlee was. Not comparable with any other all rounders. Kapil dev was one of the clutchest player in the 80s. Be it is producing a magnificent 175 when India was 17/5 or smashing 4 sixes in a row to avoid follow on, Taking on genuine fast bowlers or great spinners he was second to none. There was this match where Patterson was wreaking havoc India with India was 31/5 he made 87 taking the attack to the opposition. Another innings was when Alan Donald was wreaking havoc he produced a breathtaking 129 at port elizabeth. ONe of the best counter attacking batsman of the 80s. Shakib is not even in the ball park of Kapil with respect to batting.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...a-3rd-test-india-tour-of-south-africa-1992-93

 

[Ab Fan]

Stokes will get nowhere near 400 wickets like Kapil. He might get to 225.

Kapil got two centuries against WI - Stokes has never faced bowling that good. <B>I always felt that Kapil could average 40+ in tests</B> in that very hard era, but he hammered along at 80 runs per hundred balls which is superfast even now. Compare KP and Root, fast scoring modern batters going at 60 / 100.

Well, I would argue that I feel Stokes could have averaged 45 in this era where you have to keep up with the pace of all three formats I.e. having a tighter batting technique and at the same time great hitting ability and improvisation. He is such a brilliant player of pace and bounce, look at that inning of 258 (170 odd balls) vs South Africa, how many players can play such innings??

He has nine test hundreds already and is younger than Root who is not even 30, he will go down and hit 15+ test hundreds by the time he retires and his match winning ability is there to be seen. KP may have retired with 47 average but his worth was of a 50 averaging batsmen, it's just that he didn't played too long(only 8 years). For Stokes, its his match winning ability outta nowhere which can never be justified by his stats and average.

As a bowler, may not be that great statistically but he can still turn the consequence of the game with his ability with the bowl. He has 5-fers each in India and Australia on those pattas and let's not forget his all-round performance in Bangladesh. He has done it everywhere.

The third best cricketer of this era and should end up as ATG like Kapil was, although Kapil can be considered slightly ahead as the difference between their bowling is wider than the difference in their batting. Our Kapil is a legend but your Stokes is also on the way.

 

[light]

Shakib probably is a better batsman than Hadlee was. Not comparable with any other all rounders. Kapil dev was one of the clutchest player in the 80s. Be it is producing a magnificent 175 when India was 17/5 or smashing 4 sixes in a row to avoid follow on, Taking on genuine fast bowlers or great spinners he was second to none. There was this match where Patterson was wreaking havoc India with India was 31/5 he made 87 taking the attack to the opposition. Another innings was when Alan Donald was wreaking havoc he produced a breathtaking 129 at port elizabeth. ONe of the best counter attacking batsman of the 80s. Shakib is not even in the ball park of Kapil with respect to batting.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...a-3rd-test-india-tour-of-south-africa-1992-93

I only gave my POV from what I have witnessed, as mentioned in my original post. Kapil was probably a top notch OP Allrounder, but I have only seen bits and pieces of highlights. You probably know more than I do regarding that.

 

[Hawkeye]

Stokes is not the top 3 bowler of his side, neither a top 2-3 batsman. He's a good batter nonetheless.

Shakib is an excellent bowler and batsman in his side, mostly because others are very low quality. Regardless of that he's still very good.

Both do not compare with the likes of Imran Khan who was the best bowler in a quality side and also one of the top batters.

 

[tyron_woodley]

shakib plays for a weak team. It's impossible to predict how good he could have been if he played for a better side.

You don't think A shakib in India or austrslia would make a difference lol?

shakib's batting average would be a lot higher in my opinion if he played for a better side.

I won't say he is as good as imran or hadlee or kapil.

hadlee could possibly be the GOAT. Carried a weak n.z team single handedly to a top 3 spot.

 

[Robert]

Well, I would argue that I feel Stokes could have averaged 45 in this era where you have to keep up with the pace of all three formats I.e. having a tighter batting technique and at the same time great hitting ability and improvisation. He is such a brilliant player of pace and bounce, look at that inning of 258 (170 odd balls) vs South Africa, how many players can play such innings??

He has nine test hundreds already and is younger than Root who is not even 30, he will go down and hit 15+ test hundreds by the time he retires and his match winning ability is there to be seen. KP may have retired with 47 average but his worth was of a 50 averaging batsmen, it's just that he didn't played too long(only 8 years). For Stokes, its his match winning ability outta nowhere which can never be justified by his stats and average.

As a bowler, may not be that great statistically but he can still turn the consequence of the game with his ability with the bowl. He has 5-fers each in India and Australia on those pattas and let's not forget his all-round performance in Bangladesh. He has done it everywhere.

The third best cricketer of this era and should end up as ATG like Kapil was, although Kapil can be considered slightly ahead as the difference between their bowling is wider than the difference in their batting. Our Kapil is a legend but your Stokes is also on the way.

Kapil of course had the luxury of coming in behind Gavaskar, Amanarth, Vishy, Vengsarkar, Azhar, Shastri. So he had license to attack. He scored 33% faster than Richards and Botham, a jaw-dropping statistic.

Stokes has come up in a very weak batting era for England, arguably the weakest ever as the CC is not producing test class batsmen. He has been forced to take a more responsible role with the bat and reduced his bowling load, in part due to injuries. That 250 was on a flattie. I was more impressed by his century in India.

He could conceivably push his test average into the forties but he bowling average will not drop below thirty. He is a batsman who can do a decent fourth seamer job.

I have been championing him ever since he got a century in his second test on a Perth flier against a rampaging Johnson. I defended him when had that run of ducks and was dropped. I mislike the hyperbole he has attracted since the WC final last year.

 

[Asifnow]

Kapil of course had the luxury of coming in behind Gavaskar, Amanarth, Vishy, Vengsarkar, Azhar, Shastri. So he had license to attack. He scored 33% faster than Richards and Botham, a jaw-dropping statistic.

Stokes has come up in a very weak batting era for England, arguably the weakest ever as the CC is not producing test class batsmen. He has been forced to take a more responsible role with the bat and reduced his bowling load, in part due to injuries. That 250 was on a flattie. I was more impressed by his century in India.

He could conceivably push his test average into the forties but he bowling average will not drop below thirty. He is a batsman who can do a decent fourth seamer job.

I have been championing him ever since he got a century in his second test on a Perth flier against a rampaging Johnson. I defended him when had that run of ducks and was dropped. I mislike the hyperbole he has attracted since the WC final last year.

I do not think this is England's weakest batting era, they were worse during parts of the 90s and 00s but Stokes still deserves a lot of credit for his performances with the bat and several of his biggest scores have been crucial for winning or saving England a game. The fact that he can also pick up the odd wicket adds to his worth.

Moving onto Shakib, he has been Bangladesh's greatest ever cricketer and their only true world level player .... ever. His left arm spin made him a genuine wicket taker and his ability to score runs made him a genuine all rounder, more so than Stokes, who imo is a batsman who bowls a bit.

The all rounders of the 80s were almost all genuine bowlers and batsmen. Hadlee maybe was not quite the batsman the others were and Imran was probably the purest all rounder of the lot, but they all had more going for them than Shakib and definitely Stokes. People need to remember these guys could score a crucial fifty and take a five-for and Imran/Botham could do both on their best days. Their level has not been reached by any all rounder since, not even Kallis.

I think the better comparison for the two is the generation of all rounders in the late 90s and most of the 00s, so the likes of Kallis, Flintoff and co.

 

[TheOnDrive]

I understand we are free to use any word we want as long as people reading it can understand but I wish posters would stop using the word "inning" when referring to an "innings".
It is both singular and plural, unless you're talking baseball or something else.

 

[Robert]

I do not think this is England's weakest batting era, they were worse during parts of the 90s and 00s but Stokes still deserves a lot of credit for his performances with the bat and several of his biggest scores have been crucial for winning or saving England a game. The fact that he can also pick up the odd wicket adds to his worth.

Moving onto Shakib, he has been Bangladesh's greatest ever cricketer and their only true world level player .... ever. His left arm spin made him a genuine wicket taker and his ability to score runs made him a genuine all rounder, more so than Stokes, who imo is a batsman who bowls a bit.

The all rounders of the 80s were almost all genuine bowlers and batsmen. Hadlee maybe was not quite the batsman the others were and Imran was probably the purest all rounder of the lot, but they all had more going for them than Shakib and definitely Stokes. People need to remember these guys could score a crucial fifty and take a five-for and Imran/Botham could do both on their best days. Their level has not been reached by any all rounder since, not even Kallis.

I think the better comparison for the two is the generation of all rounders in the late 90s and most of the 00s, so the likes of Kallis, Flintoff and co.

Atherton, Stewart, Nasser, Thorpe would walk into the current side. Then Tres, Vaughan, Strauss, and later KP, Bell, Collingwood, Cook and Prior. All better than the current guys bar Root and Stokes.

I agree on your later points. Botham scored a century and took a fivefer in a match on four occasions. There is nobody like that now.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Atherton, Stewart, Nasser, Thorpe would walk into the current side. Then Tres, Vaughan, Strauss, and later KP, Bell, Collingwood, Cook and Prior. All better than the current guys bar Root and Stokes.

I agree on your later points. Botham scored a century and took a fivefer in a match on four occasions. There is nobody like that now.

root
stokes
pope

but bowling is far better now. spinners too with plenty of all rounder spinners now.

woakes and curran again bowling all rounders. More balanced. far better English team.

Current English team actually could be the second best English team of all time post 90. Best one was the one with all the greats like KP, prime Anderson, broad, Strauss, cook, prior and the dude that got destroyed by Mitchell Johnson. Forgot his name

 

[Asifnow]

Atherton, Stewart, Nasser, Thorpe would walk into the current side. Then Tres, Vaughan, Strauss, and later KP, Bell, Collingwood, Cook and Prior. All better than the current guys bar Root and Stokes.

I agree on your later points. Botham scored a century and took a fivefer in a match on four occasions. There is nobody like that now.

History may be kind to Nasser, Atherton and Thorpe but they weren't as good as KP, Strauss, Cook or Root. Not even close. I should may be have said the 90s and early 00s. By the late 00s and into the early part of the last decade, England's batting was its best ever. It is pretty weak post retirement from Cook but Root is an all time great English batsman, there were 0 of that in the 90s, Stoke is a terrific middle/lower order batsman and there a string of guys who can score quickly, if not necessarily long. England did not have that luxury in the 90s or early 00s.

 

[Robert]

root
stokes
pope

but bowling is far better now. spinners too with plenty of all rounder spinners now.

woakes and curran again bowling all rounders. More balanced. far better English team.

Current English team actually could be the second best English team of all time post 90. Best one was the one with all the greats like KP, prime Anderson, broad, Strauss, cook, prior and the dude that got destroyed by Mitchell Johnson. Forgot his name

I wouldn’t say so.

Think of Gooch’s team that held WI at home and were close to beating them away. Gooch, Gower, Lamb, Smith, Fraser.

Then Nasser’s team of 2000 which had Stewart, Thorpe, Gough, Caddick and Cork and beat Lara’s boys 3-1 before winning in Pakistan and SL.

That morphed into Vaughan’s side which had Tres, Flintoff, Harmison and Hoggard and went fourteen wins for two losses culminating in getting the Ashes back against Ponting’s great side.

Then there was the Strauss side you refer to with excellent batting down to seven, and Swann.

Of the modern side only Root and Stokes would certainly displace anyone from those four sides. Anderson is finished. Broad maybe, but I couldn’t see him displacing Fraser, Gough, Caddick, or Vaughan’s pace quartet.

 

[Robert]

History may be kind to Nasser, Atherton and Thorpe but they weren't as good as KP, Strauss, Cook or Root. Not even close. I should may be have said the 90s and early 00s. By the late 00s and into the early part of the last decade, England's batting was its best ever. It is pretty weak post retirement from Cook but Root is an all time great English batsman, there were 0 of that in the 90s, Stoke is a terrific middle/lower order batsman and there a string of guys who can score quickly, if not necessarily long. England did not have that luxury in the 90s or early 00s.

Thorpe was that good. When they put him in his right position of #5 he averaged fifty against the Windies, W&W, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Warne and Murali.

I said Nasser, Athers and Thorpe would get into the current side.

 

[Bigboii]

Stokes will get nowhere near 400 wickets like Kapil. He might get to 225.

Kapil got two centuries against WI - Stokes has never faced bowling that good. I always felt that Kapil could average 40+ in tests in that very hard era, but he hammered along at 80 runs per hundred balls which is superfast even now. Compare KP and Root, fast scoring modern batters going at 60 / 100.

Wasim Akram said the same thing about KD he felt that if Kapil put a lil more effort into his batting he would have a really good batsman like the caliber where he could he could walk into the team as a batsman and would still be a star but I always felt he focused too much on his bowling

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Shakib shouldn't be compared to Ben Stokes, Ben Stokes is an impact player and once in a generation cricketer. Stokes is the all time best all rounder. No one comes close to the fire starter, all 80s cricketers are like Khaled Mahmud compared to the mocking bird.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Shakib shouldn't be compared to Ben Stokes, Ben Stokes is an impact player and once in a generation cricketer. Stokes is the all time best all rounder. No one comes close to the fire starter, all 80s cricketers are like Khaled Mahmud compared to the mocking bird.

but shakib plays for a weaker team? his stats may be better in a stronger team? shakib is a phenomenal player.

definitely one ofnthe best all rounders of our era.

 

[Ab Fan]

Thorpe was that good. When they put him in his right position of #5 he averaged fifty against the Windies, W&W, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Warne and Murali.

I said Nasser, Athers and Thorpe would get into the current side.

An England XI since 80s

Cook
Gooch
Gower
KP
Root
Stokes
Stewart(wkt)
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson

Since 2000s

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan (c)
KP
Root
Stokes
Prior(wkt)
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson

 

[Robert]

My honest and unpopular opinion, the fast bowlers of past era are overrated. Yes I have said it! I believe the current group of fast bowlers, globally, are better than the ones from 80's (P.S I am talking about globally collectively).

What are you basing that on?

 

[Robert]

An England XI since 80s

Cook
Gooch
Gower
KP
Root
Stokes
Stewart(wkt)
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson

Since 2000s

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan (c)
KP
Root
Stokes
Prior(wkt)
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson

Hmm.... since 1980....

Gooch
Stewart
Gower
KP
Root or Thorpe
Botham
Prior (wkt) though I hesitate to leave out Russell who was the best keeper in three decades by miles
Gough
Swann
Caddick
Willis

Since 2000

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan (c)
KP
Root
Stokes
Prior(wkt)
Swann
Broad
Harmison
Anderson

It was a tough call to leave out Flintoff but you need wicket taking power and neither he nor Stokes really bring that.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Don't think a collective group of players can be overrated. All decades since 1970s have had great bowlers.

 

[Ab Fan]

Hmm.... since 1980....

Gooch
Stewart
Gower
KP
Root or Thorpe
Botham
Prior (wkt) though I hesitate to leave out Russell who was the best keeper in three decades by miles
Gough
Swann
Caddick
Willis

Interesting. Gough and Caddick?? Does their wicket count add up to Stuart Broad's total wickets tally alone?

Does the count of international wickets tally of Willis, Gough and Caddick since 1980 add up to Stuart Broad's tally?

Cook won a test series in Australia for England after 25 years, in India after 43 years. That should count for a lot. I would continue with my team with a small change.

Gooch
Cook
Gower
KP
Root
Botham
Prior(wkt)
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson

Hard to drop Stewart. Flintoff has as many wickets as Caddick and Gough along with 5 test hundreds to his name. Broad and Jimmy has combined 1100 test wickets to their name.

 

[Robert]

Interesting. Gough and Caddick?? Does their wicket count add up to Stuart Broad's total wickets tally alone?

Does the count of international wickets tally of Willis, Gough and Caddick since 1980 add up to Stuart Broad's tally?

Cook won a test series in Australia for England after 25 years, in India after 43 years. That should count for a lot. I would continue with my team with a small change.

Gooch
Cook
Gower
KP
Root
Botham
Prior(wkt)
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson

Hard to drop Stewart. Flintoff has as many wickets as Caddick and Gough along with 5 test hundreds to his name. Broad and Jimmy has combined 1100 test wickets to their name.

Broad was lucky enough to come up in the central contracts era. Had he played in the nineties he would have finished on around 200 test wickets as he would be breaking down half the time.

Gough was an all-conditions fast bowler, Broad isn’t really. Caddick, when he got the bit between his teeth was a bulldozer like Ambrose. It’s a personal preference.

Flintoff only had three 5fers in tests.

Willis was better than any of them - fast and accurate from the first ball, steepling bounce, cutting it about, effective everywhere.

Actually Strauss won the Ashes in Australia, not Cook. Admittedly Cook was a massive part of that win with 730 runs.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

How easily people forget about Jaques Kallis? They are not even ahead of Kallis let alone 80s allrounders.

 

[Ab Fan]

Broad was lucky enough to come up in the central contracts era. Had he played in the nineties he would have finished on around 200 test wickets as he would be breaking down half the time.

Gough was an all-conditions fast bowler, Broad isn’t really. Caddick, when he got the bit between his teeth was a bulldozer like Ambrose. It’s a personal preference.

Flintoff only had three 5fers in tests.

Willis was better than any of them - fast and accurate from the first ball, steepling bounce, cutting it about, effective everywhere.

Actually Strauss won the Ashes in Australia, not Cook. Admittedly Cook was a massive part of that win with 730 runs.

Those contributions in wins in Australia and India should alone make Cook a better opener than Gooch and Stewart.

Again, Flintoff's contribution in Ashes 2005 and his peak performances with bat and bowl makes him a bigger contender than Caddick and Gough.

Willis is a test legend but he didn't played much after 1980.

Basically, the conclusion is that Cook, Root, KP, Stokes (post Botham), Broad and Anderson are guaranteed names in an England XI post Botham era.

 

[Haroon786]

Interesting. Gough and Caddick?? Does their wicket count add up to Stuart Broad's total wickets tally alone?

Does the count of international wickets tally of Willis, Gough and Caddick since 1980 add up to Stuart Broad's tally?

Cook won a test series in Australia for England after 25 years, in India after 43 years. That should count for a lot. I would continue with my team with a small change.

Gooch
Cook
Gower
KP
Root
Botham
Prior(wkt)
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson

Hard to drop Stewart. Flintoff has as many wickets as Caddick and Gough along with 5 test hundreds to his name. Broad and Jimmy has combined 1100 test wickets to their name.

Think if we were to just have Best XIs based on stats alone, anyone could use Cricinfo and filter to make such teams, but there's a reason why almost everyone has different XIs, whether it's for a country or All Time. Recency bias means people who have only seen cricket in the recent few years will simply regard these years as the best they've seen, simply because they're none the wiser over the past.

Whilst, I haven't seen the likes of Gooch and Botham, but I know they are regarded as amongst the very best England have had, so wouldn't begrudge anyone putting them into their Best England XI.

 

[Robert]

Those contributions in wins in Australia and India should alone make Cook a better opener than Gooch and Stewart.

Again, Flintoff's contribution in Ashes 2005 and his peak performances with bat and bowl makes him a bigger contender than Caddick and Gough.

Willis is a test legend but he didn't played much after 1980.

Basically, the conclusion is that Cook, Root, KP, Stokes (post Botham), Broad and Anderson are guaranteed names in an England XI post Botham era.

Trouble with Cook is that he wasn't really an opener. He couldn't play the quick stuff that well. Gooch an Stewart were experts at it, facing the Windies at or near their peak and W&W. Among England openers I have seen I would put Cook fourth behind Boycott, Gooch and Stewart.

Willis got 143 wickets in the eighties at 25 each.

 

[Dulex9]

As a batsman:

Kallis
Stokes
Flintoff
Chris Woakes
Shakib
Pollock

Bowler:

Pollock
Chris Woakes
Flintoff
Kallis
Shakib
Stokes

 

[Ab Fan]

Move on from Stokes and Shakib who are unavailable half of the time, introducing the best test all rounder post the 80s quartet with a batting average of 36 and bowling average of 24.

Sir Ravindra Jadeja

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't think they are as good as legends from 80's. Not even close.

 

[Buffet]

Move on from Stokes and Shakib who are unavailable half of the time, introducing the best test all rounder post the 80s quartet with a batting average of 36 and bowling average of 24.

Sir Ravindra Jadeja

Jadeja has been batting well in recent years. It will be interesting to see if he can elevate his batting average to 40+ while keeping his bowling average below 25.

 

[Unbiased-Fan]

-Holder is underrated and is probably better than Stokes.
-Jadeja with his improved batting is definitely among the best.
-Shakib's impact cant be measured by his numbers. He is the best batsman and bowler for Bangladesh from last decade.
-Woakes is overrated as he only performs in UK.
-Ashwin has great batting ability but he usually throw his wicket away almost eveytime.
-Cameron Green can surpass everyone above.
-Shadab Khan must be given a long run in tests.


1.Holder
2.Stokes /Jadeja
4.Shakib
5.Ashwin
6.Green
7.Woakes
8.Grandhomme

 

[Ab Fan]

-Holder is underrated and is probably better than Stokes.
-Jadeja with his improved batting is definitely among the best.
-Shakib's impact cant be measured by his numbers. He is the best batsman and bowler for Bangladesh from last decade.
-Woakes is overrated as he only performs in UK.
-Ashwin has great batting ability but he usually throw his wicket away almost eveytime.
-Cameron Green can surpass everyone above.
-Shadab Khan must be given a long run in tests.


1.Holder
2.Stokes /Jadeja
4.Shakib
5.Ashwin
6.Green
7.Woakes
8.Grandhomme

<B>Holder</B>

Bat:
Home - 39
Away - 22

Bowl:

Home - 21
Away - 36

 

[jeetu]

At home condition Jadeja has amazing stats

[table=class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Player [/td][td]Span [/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]Avg Diff [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]GS Sobers (WI) [/td][td]1954-1974 [/td][td]44 [/td][td]4075 [/td][td]66.8 [/td][td]14 [/td][td]107 [/td][td]34.12 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]32.68 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]JH Kallis (SA) [/td][td]1995-2013 [/td][td]88 [/td][td]7035 [/td][td]56.73 [/td][td]23 [/td][td]165 [/td][td]30.61 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]26.12 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Imran Khan (PAK) [/td][td]1976-1992 [/td][td]38 [/td][td]1540 [/td][td]45.29 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]163 [/td][td]19.2 [/td][td]10 [/td][td]26.08 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]RA Jadeja (INDIA) [/td][td]2012-2022 [/td][td]35 [/td][td]1431 [/td][td]43.36 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]171 [/td][td]20.41 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]22.94 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]N Kapil Dev (INDIA) [/td][td]1978-1994 [/td][td]65 [/td][td]2810 [/td][td]36.97 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]219 [/td][td]26.49 [/td][td]11 [/td][td]10.47 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Shakib Al Hasan (BAN) [/td][td]2007-2021 [/td][td]39 [/td][td]2641 [/td][td]40.63 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]142 [/td][td]31.56 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]9.06 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]CL Cairns (NZ) [/td][td]1991-2004 [/td][td]31 [/td][td]1860 [/td][td]37.2 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]109 [/td][td]28.35 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]8.84 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R Ashwin (INDIA) [/td][td]2011-2022 [/td][td]50 [/td][td]1596 [/td][td]29.55 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]306 [/td][td]21.3 [/td][td]24 [/td][td]8.25 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]SM Pollock (SA) [/td][td]1995-2008 [/td][td]59 [/td][td]1922 [/td][td]29.12 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]235 [/td][td]21.08 [/td][td]9 [/td][td]8.03 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]IT Botham (ENG) [/td][td]1977-1992 [/td][td]59 [/td][td]2969 [/td][td]34.92 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]226 [/td][td]27.54 [/td][td]17 [/td][td]7.38 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]MH Mankad (INDIA) [/td][td]1948-1959 [/td][td]23 [/td][td]1128 [/td][td]33.17 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]103 [/td][td]26.53 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]6.64 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) [/td][td]1973-1990 [/td][td]43 [/td][td]1501 [/td][td]29.43 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]201 [/td][td]22.96 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]6.47 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wasim Akram (PAK) [/td][td]1985-2001 [/td][td]41 [/td][td]1116 [/td][td]25.36 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]154 [/td][td]22.22 [/td][td]8 [/td][td]3.13 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]WPUJC Vaas (SL) [/td][td]1994-2009 [/td][td]56 [/td][td]1533 [/td][td]26.89 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]180 [/td][td]26.32 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]0.56 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]MG Johnson (AUS) [/td][td]2007-2015 [/td][td]34 [/td][td]1009 [/td][td]25.87 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]171 [/td][td]25.47 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]0.39 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]MM Ali (ENG) [/td][td]2014-2021 [/td][td]35 [/td][td]1764 [/td][td]33.28 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]104 [/td][td]33.48 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]-0.19 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A Flintoff (ENG) [/td][td]1998-2009 [/td][td]40 [/td][td]2007 [/td][td]35.21 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]109 [/td][td]36.11 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]-0.89 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]HH Streak (ZIM) [/td][td]1994-2005 [/td][td]33 [/td][td]1102 [/td][td]23.95 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]120 [/td][td]25.99 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]-2.03 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A Kumble (INDIA) [/td][td]1993-2008 [/td][td]63 [/td][td]1340 [/td][td]21.61 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]350 [/td][td]24.88 [/td][td]25 [/td][td]-3.27 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]SCJ Broad (ENG) [/td][td]2008-2021 [/td][td]85 [/td][td]2279 [/td][td]22.34 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]341 [/td][td]25.78 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]-3.44 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]DL Vettori (NZ) [/td][td]1997-2012 [/td][td]57 [/td][td]2470 [/td][td]33.37 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]159 [/td][td]37.11 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]-3.73 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R Illingworth (ENG) [/td][td]1958-1973 [/td][td]43 [/td][td]1228 [/td][td]22.74 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]102 [/td][td]27.14 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]-4.4 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R Benaud (AUS) [/td][td]1952-1964 [/td][td]29 [/td][td]1078 [/td][td]23.95 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]104 [/td][td]30.74 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]-6.78 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]SK Warne (AUS) [/td][td]1992-2007 [/td][td]69 [/td][td]1533 [/td][td]19.16 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]319 [/td][td]26.39 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]-7.23 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Harbhajan Singh (INDIA) [/td][td]1998-2013 [/td][td]55 [/td][td]1047 [/td][td]18.36 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]265 [/td][td]28.76 [/td][td]18 [/td][td]-10.4 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[Ab Fan]

Stokes, Shakib or Jadeja? Who is the best in tests?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Stokes, Shakib or Jadeja? Who is the best in tests?

Stokes as a bowler has become limited. He bowls only when it is necessary. Even as a batsman he clicks once in a while. Shakib is on the wrong side of 30s. He is playing for like 15 years. Jaddu post injury no idea how he will perform. In short next gen all rounders are ready to take over. Cam green has already shown potential. But it is thankless to be an all format all rounder. We have to wait and watch.

 

[PakPremi]

I have seen a lot of matches from 80s onward and trust me the bowling has been very poor in the days of Stokes and Shakib. So any runs scored by them cannot be compared, and bowlingwise it is not worth debating.

 

[Ab Fan]

Stokes as a bowler has become limited. He bowls only when it is necessary. Even as a batsman he clicks once in a while. Shakib is on the wrong side of 30s. He is playing for like 15 years. Jaddu post injury no idea how he will perform. In short next gen all rounders are ready to take over. Cam green has already shown potential. But it is thankless to be an all format all rounder. We have to wait and watch.

Jaddu has become a batting A/R these days. Played two series last year and hit two hundreds(175 vs SL and 100 odd vs England away).

 

[Robert]

Stokes, Shakib or Jadeja? Who is the best in tests?

Stokes is not an all rounder any more. He is a batsman who bowls occasionally.

Jadeja is a monster AR in Asia but lightweight elsewhere.

I’ll say Shakib, who has decent returns away and would probably do better is he played for a stronger side.

 

[Proactive_]

I've always felt that Shakib is criminally underrated. A solid batsman who can make big scores, defend when needed and even counterattack effectively under pressure. As a bowler he's been the central figure in just about every landmark Bangladesh test win, a bit like Hadlee for NZ. After Herath, I would say easily the best left arm spinner of his generation, maybe even the best if you consider all 3 formats and not just Tests.

He's been in international cricket for 15 years and I don't remember him ever playing even a 3 test series and he's hardly played 65 Tests. Compare that to the "Big 3" getting 5 Test series and ample amounts of time to acclimatize and become better in all conditions. That's a big handicap for players of weaker teams.

Stokes is a pretty good batsman and a useful bowler but nowhere near the levels of the quartet yet. Those 4 were the mainstay of their bowling attacks and still managed to be more than credible batsmen at No 6-7 (maybe except Hadlee). Stokes can't be relied to be a consistent first change bowler and expected to maintain his batting prowess at the same time. Now if he improves his batting further considering the "intent" he bats with then it can be a debate.

 

[Ab Fan]

Stokes is not an all rounder any more. He is a batsman who bowls occasionally.

Jadeja is a monster AR in Asia but lightweight elsewhere.

I’ll say Shakib, who has decent returns away and would probably do better is he played for a stronger side.

Jadeja's outside Asia record is pretty good, better than Ashwin.

Bowl AVG :

Aus - 21(4-fer in Sydney)
SA - 25( a 6-fer in SA)
WI - 25
Eng - 46
NZ - 60

Bat AVG :

Aus - 43
Eng - 30(100 odd last year in series decider)
WI - 24
SA - 8( just 1 test)
NZ - 35

So, only two venues where his bowling record is poor and batting record also seems to be good in 3 venues( done well in England).

 

[Justcrazy]

Stokes is a high impact batsman , when he scores he can win games. But as a bowler he is bowling less so it is difficult to gauge him as a bowler.

I think if we take out impact thing out of here , shakib is pretty consistent with both the bat and ball.

 

[Robert]

Bat AVG :

Aus - 43
Eng - 30(100 odd last year in series decider)


So, only two venues where his bowling record is poor and batting record also seems to be good in 3 venues( done well in England).

Decider? Series was drawn 2-2.

 

[Ab Fan]

Decider? Series was drawn 2-2.

Yeah but it was a decider, isn't?

Also, not Jadeja's fault there that his team lost. Next tour if Stokes takes a 5-fer in India and England loses, you won't say that it doesn't count because England didn't won.

Jadeja's numbers stands up with the best in the business. Average of 24 with bowl and 36 with bat with notable performances overseas with both bat and bowl.

 

[Robert]

Yeah but it was a decider, isn't?

Also, not Jadeja's fault there that his team lost. Next tour if Stokes takes a 5-fer in India and England loses, you won't say that it doesn't count because England didn't won.

Jadeja's numbers stands up with the best in the business. Average of 24 with bowl and 36 with bat with notable performances overseas with both bat and bowl.

I would say such a Stokes performance would “count” though less so if it was in a dead rubber.

Just a bit curious about your use of the word “decider” - to me that means the final match of a series which has a tied score line up to that point.

 

[James]

Stokes is now a post all rounder.

He is more of a specialist captain nowadays.

Wickets from him are purely a bonus.

He’s there as the leader and master tactician who occasionally plays a clutch innings with the bat.

 

[Executioner]

Shakib in my opinion is in the category of the All-Time Greats of the game when discussing ODIs and Tests. If you look at his record, it looks phenomenal no matter how look at it. Is he the best allrounder ever? Perhaps not.

Also most of the other ATG allrounders are pace bowling allrounders with the exception of Sobers who IMO was more of a batsman who can bat rather than being an allrounder. When I think about allrounder, I think of someone who plays a solid role with both bat and ball.

Shakib is our best bowler and batsman statistically IMO. He is not technically the most gifted batsman and he does not play big innings too often but he is very consistent. Also a very good fielder. Underrated because of the team he plays for and also because in modern era T20 League performance is given too much importance. Shakib's weakest aspect is his T20 batting while his bowling is excellent but not among the best as you would expect from a finger spinner without the mystery element. He is an average T20 batsman and underperformer in T20s domestically.

As for Stokes, he is a big game player but to put himself among all the other greats is unfair to the greats themselves. Stokes has not done that well statistically speaking and is seldom the prime allrounder in his team. He has a limited role in the team on most occasions.

 

[Ab Fan]

I would say such a Stokes performance would “count” though less so if it was in a dead rubber.

Just a bit curious about your use of the word “decider” - to me that means the final match of a series which has a tied score line up to that point.

The final test wasn't a dead rubber because the winner of the series was still undecided. India lost the final test and the series ended up drawn.

Point is same either way. The final test decides whether India will win the series or draw the series. Whether England will lose the series or draw the series.

 

[Robert]

The final test wasn't a dead rubber because the winner of the series was still undecided. India lost the final test and the series ended up drawn.

Point is same either way. The final test decides whether India will win the series or draw the series. Whether England will lose the series or draw the series.

Oh yes, was the fifth test. I had an idea it was one of the 2021 matches.

Jadeja isn’t someone who concerns me in England. He might get some runs down the order but won’t take any wickets.

He’s a red ink merchant anyway, so that 36 batting average overall means less.

 

[Ab Fan]

Oh yes, was the fifth test. I had an idea it was one of the 2021 matches.

Jadeja isn’t someone who concerns me in England. He might get some runs down the order but won’t take any wickets.

He’s a red ink merchant anyway, so that 36 batting average overall means less.

Again, he did picked important wickets in Oval on Day 5 and helped India won that game. That might not concern you but it did helped India get a 2-1 lead.

He used to be a red ink merchant 6-7 years ago when he would bat below Ashwin due to being young and inexperienced but in last 5 years, he has been doing pretty good with bat averaging 46.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...al2=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting

 

[jnaveen1980]

Shakib in my opinion is in the category of the All-Time Greats of the game when discussing ODIs and Tests. If you look at his record, it looks phenomenal no matter how look at it. Is he the best allrounder ever? Perhaps not.

Also most of the other ATG allrounders are pace bowling allrounders with the exception of Sobers who IMO was more of a batsman who can bat rather than being an allrounder. When I think about allrounder, I think of someone who plays a solid role with both bat and ball.

Shakib is our best bowler and batsman statistically IMO. He is not technically the most gifted batsman and he does not play big innings too often but he is very consistent. Also a very good fielder. Underrated because of the team he plays for and also because in modern era T20 League performance is given too much importance. Shakib's weakest aspect is his T20 batting while his bowling is excellent but not among the best as you would expect from a finger spinner without the mystery element. He is an average T20 batsman and underperformer in T20s domestically.

As for Stokes, he is a big game player but to put himself among all the other greats is unfair to the greats themselves. Stokes has not done that well statistically speaking and is seldom the prime allrounder in his team. He has a limited role in the team on most occasions.

I am with you. Shakib is one of the top flight spinning all rounder especially in ODIs. If anything he has under-achieved.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Stokes' bowling is much inferior to all fab 4 (Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, Botham).

Actually Flintoff was a superior bowler than Stokes. But the killer instinct of Stokes the batter in clutch situations is so awesome.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Stokes' bowling is much inferior to all fab 4 (Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, Botham).

Actually Flintoff was a superior bowler than Stokes. But the killer instinct of Stokes the batter in clutch situations is so awesome.

We have to measure in terms of responsibility sharing. 80s Fab 4 shouldered a lot more responsibility than modern all rounders. Kapil Dev with absolutely no support against West Indies at Ahmedabad bowled 30.3 overs on the trot picking up 9 for 83 to bowl them out for 201 runs.

 

[James]

Actually Flintoff was a superior bowler than Stokes. But the killer instinct of Stokes the batter in clutch situations is so awesome.

I don’t have the time or energy to do a tallying exercise, but my guess would be that Ben Stokes has won more games with his various skills for England across all formats certainly than Andrew Flintoff did (and has also won more games than many other all rounders in history have…)

 

[BunnyRabbit]

I don’t have the time or energy to do a tallying exercise, but my guess would be that Ben Stokes has won more games with his various skills for England across all formats certainly than Andrew Flintoff did (and has also won more games than many other all rounders in history have…)

Bro I was just stating my opinion that Flintoff was a better "BOWLER" than Stokes. Didn't compare the allround skills of Stokes with either the 80s fab four or Flintoff. Just the bowling.

You are a great poster and I respect that. Don't get offended for what I didn't even say.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

We have to measure in terms of responsibility sharing. 80s Fab 4 shouldered a lot more responsibility than modern all rounders. Kapil Dev with absolutely no support against West Indies at Ahmedabad bowled 30.3 overs on the trot picking up 9 for 83 to bowl them out for 201 runs.

Yes, maybe. But English Cricket is currently blessed in LOIs where they have all the guys who can singlehandedly win them a game or all combine to contribute enough to win them games.

Kapil is the best Indian pacer. No doubt. Maybe the burden got to him in the last few years of his career as his bowling visibly lost some bite.

Imran was relatively mediocre in the first 7-8 years of his career. Then he turned his career around in the last decade but even then in last 2 years, injuries had visibly taken their toll on him.

Hadlee was probably the one who remained consistent all through in terms of being the back bone of NZ bowling but didn't have that good of a team to be amongst the top 4.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Dev shined against one of the greatest test side's of all time the WI, heck he even out bowled and out batted Imran in the WI...

Please don't compare a child like Stokes and a toddler Sakib to a legend like DEV...

It all comes down to the quality of the competition you have faced, DEV shined against a hall of fame cricket team, that has separated him from the names mentioned above...

 

[moghul]

In the current era, Stokes and Shakib are without a doubt the best genuine all-rounders of this era.

How do you compare them with the 80s quartet all-rounders- Imran, Hadlee, Botham and Kapil?

Discuss!

Stokes and Shakib would be considered 2nd tier all rounder in that era. They were all fast bowling all rounder and all 4 of them ( IK, Hadlee, Boatham and Kapil ) were way ahead of Stokes . Hard to compare a spinning all-rounder like Shakib with them but batsmen of those era used to play spin very well and Shakip wouldn't be a successful bowler.

 

[wrongun]

Bro I was just stating my opinion that Flintoff was a better "BOWLER" than Stokes. Didn't compare the allround skills of Stokes with either the 80s fab four or Flintoff. Just the bowling.

You are a great poster and I respect that. Don't get offended for what I didn't even say.

As a bowler, sure. Freddy was legitimately quick, got great bounce and had all the skills Stokes has- Freddy's around the wicket reverse swing to Gilchrist became a standard tactic to lefties after he made it work v an all time great.

Freddy could take the new ball or as a change bowler. Stokes is more a support seamer, or 2nd change type bowler.

 

[jnaveen1980]

As a bowler, sure. Freddy was legitimately quick, got great bounce and had all the skills Stokes has- Freddy's around the wicket reverse swing to Gilchrist became a standard tactic to lefties after he made it work v an all time great.

Freddy could take the new ball or as a change bowler. Stokes is more a support seamer, or 2nd change type bowler.

Stokes has played 40 tests where England has won. He has picked 90 wickets. Anderson played only like 29 of those with stokes tests took 132 wickets @ 16.87, Broad 34 tests took 138 wickets @21.26 , Ali 21 tests took 94 wickets@22.30. So he was more like 3rd wheel. Almost all his 9 Man of the matches were for his batting

 

[Ab Fan]

My top 10 A/R would be :

1. Sobers( a top tier ATG batsman in all sense and decent enough with bowl, a true match winner)

2. Hadlee( a top tier ATG bowler in all sense and decent enough with bat, again a genuine match winner)

3. Imran( ATG bowler although I put a slight asterisk on his bowling for home matches and a good enough bat in latter part of career)

4. Kallis( ATG batsman and a good enough bowler in first half of career)

5. Botham( great bowler and very good bat)

6. Miller( very good bowler and very good batsman)

7. Kapil( great bowler and good bat slightly underachieved with bat)

8. Pollock( borderline ATG bowler and decent batsman but batting stats inflated by not outs)

9. Ashwin( borderline ATG bowler and decent batsman)

10. The 10th one is unclear. It could be Tony Grieg, Shakib Al Hasan, Ben Stokes, Jadeja, Cairns, Flintoff, Vettori etc.

Note - I have not included the likes of Proctor, Aubrey Faulkner etc because their sample was pretty low. Proctor obviously rated pretty high but didn't played at highest level enough.

 

[Ab Fan]

I have not really gone into this genuine A/R definition too much because ultimately your overall contribution including bat and bowl both is what matters assuming you atleast do enough in your weaker suit to qualify for A/R category.

 

[happydavy]

All rounder skills is one part of the story and performance is other. Ben stokes is an absolute champion and wins matches with both bat and ball. Dare I say that no cricketer past or present has won more crucial and championship matches than Stokes. If Stokes was an Indian or Pakistani, he would be called the 'best ever' by media and fans alike.

 

[Ab Fan]

All rounder skills is one part of the story and performance is other. Ben stokes is an absolute champion and wins matches with both bat and ball. Dare I say that no cricketer past or present has won more crucial and championship matches than Stokes. If Stokes was an Indian or Pakistani, he would be called the 'best ever' by media and fans alike.

Indians and Pakistanis are generally obsessed with stats and Stokes falls well short in that. So, he would actually be underrated by media and fans here.

 

[Robert]

All rounder skills is one part of the story and performance is other. Ben stokes is an absolute champion and wins matches with both bat and ball. Dare I say that no cricketer past or present has won more crucial and championship matches than Stokes.

How do you quantify that? How does Stokes “win” “crucial” team games? Do you mean be effective at critical moments? He does that, but so did Botham, Imran and Kapil.

 

[Robert]

My top 10 A/R would be :

1. Sobers( a top tier ATG batsman in all sense and decent enough with bowl, a true match winner)

2. Hadlee( a top tier ATG bowler in all sense and decent enough with bat, again a genuine match winner)

3. Imran( ATG bowler although I put a slight asterisk on his bowling for home matches and a good enough bat in latter part of career)

4. Kallis( ATG batsman and a good enough bowler in first half of career)

5. Botham( great bowler and very good bat)

6. Miller( very good bowler and very good batsman)

7. Kapil( great bowler and good bat slightly underachieved with bat)

8. Pollock( borderline ATG bowler and decent batsman but batting stats inflated by not outs)

9. Ashwin( borderline ATG bowler and decent batsman)

10. The 10th one is unclear. It could be Tony Grieg, Shakib Al Hasan, Ben Stokes, Jadeja, Cairns, Flintoff, Vettori etc.

Note - I have not included the likes of Proctor, Aubrey Faulkner etc because their sample was pretty low. Proctor obviously rated pretty high but didn't played at highest level enough.

Hadlee wasn’t good enough to be picked as a batter so I would not put him in my top six. They would be Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Miller, Botham and Kapil. All those guys get in for both disciplines.

 

[Ab Fan]

Hadlee wasn’t good enough to be picked as a batter so I would not put him in my top six. They would be Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Miller, Botham and Kapil. All those guys get in for both disciplines.

As I said above, I have not really gone into this genuine A/R definition too much because ultimately your overall contribution including bat and bowl both is what matters assuming you atleast do enough in your weaker suit to qualify for A/R category.

Hadlee was a slightly lesser batter than Kapil, Miller, Botham. But a much superior bowler than all three.So, overall he is up there.

 

[KingOfPakBreakfast]

Without comparing with others, I think Stokes has been incredible. We have to remember the personal circumstances he’s had to overcome as well ( the Bristol brawl and following legal proceedings, losing his dad to cancer, his own mental health issues) to perform at such a high level. He’s also in a place where he really looks like he’s relaxed and enjoying his cricket. Good for him.