What's new

Is Ben Stokes the most overrated cricketer currently? Deep dive into his stats

Ben Stokes was asked to talk through his England team-mates on the eve of the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup.

Ben Stokes was asked to talk through his England team-mates on the eve of the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup.

When it came to describing himself, he replied: ‘Can bat a bit, bowl a bit and field a bit’. A bit?

The all-rounder produced the perfect all-round display, top-scoring with 89 off 79 balls, his highest international score for two years, as the hosts opened their campaign in style at The Oval. Two wickets from his 17 deliveries rattled out South Africa’s lower order as the world number one side claimed a commanding 104-run victory.

But it was THAT catch, which remained the talking point.

“It’s the best catch I’ve ever seen in the flesh,” said England spinner Graeme Swann, while Nasser Hussain and Phil Tufnell went even further labelling it the ‘greatest catch ever’.

Of course, it’s all subjective. Black Caps fans will point to Daniel Vettori’s flying one-hander against the West Indies in the World Cup four years ago while Jonty Rhodes probably has multiple entries worth of consideration, especially his full elevation sprawl to dismiss Robert Croft when the tournament was last held in England.

And then there was Bermuda’s Dwayne Leverock, underlining the power of skill over size with his full length dive to dismiss Indian opener Robin Uthappa 12 years ago.

But perhaps the most similar catch was Vasbert Drakes’s dismissal of Canada’s John Davison in 2003. Much like Stokes, he found himself in the wrong position, adjusting to take a snaffle the ball as it flew behind him on the long-on boundary.

Even the commentator was stunned, slamming him for ‘completely misjudging it’ before realising, somewhat red-faced, that the ball was actually in his hand.

But Stokes was playing down all this talk, claiming it wasn’t even his best catch – which is either another self-effacing masterstroke or a very clever humble brag.

He admitted he was in the wrong position, perhaps knowing the game was already in the bag he’d idled away from his boundary position as Andile Phehlukwayo swept Adil Rashid into distance.

Frantically back-pedalling, Stokes threw out a despairing arm and launched himself backwards like Dick Fosbury, crashing to earth with the ball embedded in his right hand.

He saluted the crowd and stood with his hands on hips, almost a little disbelieving as Rashid sprinted a full 80 yards to mob his team-mate.

“To be honest, I had a little bit of a panic, I was a little bit further in than I should have been,” said Stokes.

“The crowd’s reaction behind me was pretty awesome, I just tried to take that in as much as I could.

“The crowd were phenomenal which is the best thing about having a home World Cup.”

Stokes even claimed his dismissal of Australian Adam Voges in the Ashes four years ago was better.

“It was against the Aussies, so that ranks higher,” he joked.

By his own high standards, Stokes did not enjoy a stellar campaign in the Indian Premier League, taking six wickets and averaging 20 with the bat in his nine matches with the Rajasthan Royals.

He didn’t get among the wickets in the five-match ODI series with Pakistan, though an unbeaten 71 at Trent Bridge showed his destructive power.

However, Stokes likes to think of himself as a big game player – and there won’t be many bigger games than the 10 that lie ahead, if England are to reach their first men’s Cricket World Cup final since 1992.

“The best thing about being an all-rounder is you can influence the game pretty much the whole 100 overs,” he added.

“It is always nice when you can contribute to the team winning. The most pleasing thing is we have got the first game out of the way and winning like that. There were a few nerves knocking about, there definitely was for me and I have not felt like that in a long time.

“There has been such a long build up to the World Cup and answering questions on it for about a year now and now we are finally here. It’s just nice to walk away with a win.”
 
A potentially match winning innings today, Stokes continues to impress
 
Brilliant 100 by Ben Stokes vs Australia at Lord's
 
Ben Stokes ovverated?

Some people have no shame. If you have a few bad games a lot of posters call that player crap or every name under the sun. Fans really lack patience.

It was always clear that Stokes would be a fine player.
 
Stokes is already a cricket great. MoM in WC final and a brilliant test player. I can see him being an ATG within a few years.
 
This thread is shocking.

Stokes is anything but overrated. He is one of the key reasons why England dominated since 2015.
 
If I were Stokes I would want to bowl less and bat more. Let Woakes and the spinner bowl more and move up the batting order.
 
England are lucky to have the luxury of Root, Stokes, Anderson, Broad and now Archer. That's 5 elite names. A bit too premature on Archer but he is making buzz right up there, so well. England bowling looks more all-conditional now although they would like to have a quality spinner.

Batting wise, Rory Burns seems to be a good long-term opening option, while Stokes and Root are playing their part nicely. More is expected from Bairstow and Buttler as well.
 
If I were Stokes I would want to bowl less and bat more. Let Woakes and the spinner bowl more and move up the batting order.

Dont change the playing XI and everyone will eventually contribute.

Burns
Roy
Denly
Root(c)
Stokes
Buttler
Bairstow(wkt)
Woakes
Archer
Broad
Leach

Root is best as middle order batsmen, so he should demote himself to 4.
 
Oh my :)) :))

Sports Personality of the Year

Possible Knighthood

A lot of great things coming the way of this overrated cricketer :))

I was sceptical - specially after the Eng Vs WI T20 game - but man has he proved me and many others wrong
 
Remarkable how some called him Ben Chokes before this summer.
 
Dont change the playing XI and everyone will eventually contribute.

Burns
Roy
Denly
Root(c)
Stokes
Buttler
Bairstow(wkt)
Woakes
Archer
Broad
Leach

Root is best as middle order batsmen, so he should demote himself to 4.

I concur but would drop Buttler on current form, move Bairstow up to six and bring in Foakes behind the poles at severn.
 
This thread hasn't aged well!

Will likely end up the most high impact cricketer of his generation and a certified platinum plated, diamond studded, polished to a mirror finish ATG
 
This thread and the Steve Smith thread (before the title was changed) are the two greatest threads in PP history.
 
This thread did not age well.

Ben Stokes is one of the greatest cricketers of our time. I would place him in the top tier of current players, alongside Steve Smith and Kohli.
 
Kohli, Smith and Stokes are three greatest players currently active.

Kohli is an undisputed ATG in tests and ODIs.

Smith is on his way to become GOAT in tests and is good in ODIs.

Stokes is an ATG in tests and an ATG in ODIs.
 
Last edited:
Kohli, Smith and Stokes are three greatest players currently active.

Kohli is an undisputed ATG in tests and ODIs.

Smith is on his way to become GOAT in tests and is good in ODIs.

Stokes is an ATG in tests and an ATG in ODIs.

Stokes isn't an ATG in either format yet. Let him play 100 tests and 200 ODIs first. I am not sure if he can become an ATG in ODI with the amount of ODI he plays. Tests is guaranteed at this rate, might even be the GOAT allrounder with a few more performances like this.
 
Stokes isn't an ATG in either format yet. Let him play 100 tests and 200 ODIs first. I am not sure if he can become an ATG in ODI with the amount of ODI he plays. Tests is guaranteed at this rate, might even be the GOAT allrounder with a few more performances like this.

He will become one, he has won his team the WC final pretty much single-handedly. Yes, there were other good innings but eventually it did came down to Ben Stokes vs NZ. It was not a usual 80 odd which resulted in a win.

If Aravinda de Silva, Gilchrist and Jayasuriya can be ATGs in ODIs with that, so should be Stokes.
 
In the latest ICC Test all-rounder rankings, Ben Stokes moves up to 2nd, only behind Jason Holder of the West Indies.
 
He will become one, he has won his team the WC final pretty much single-handedly. Yes, there were other good innings but eventually it did came down to Ben Stokes vs NZ. It was not a usual 80 odd which resulted in a win.

If Aravinda de Silva, Gilchrist and Jayasuriya can be ATGs in ODIs with that, so should be Stokes.

All those players have 8k+ runs, Gilchrist is arguably the great WK-batsman of all time and Jayasuriya has 300+ wickets. Being MoM in WC final is nowhere near enough to be ATG in ODIs, that's just 1 match. Kohli is grilled only because he's in the talks for GOAT in ODIs, Stokes is nowhere near close to that (he is not even a highly ranked ODI player)
 
All those players have 8k+ runs, Gilchrist is arguably the great WK-batsman of all time and Jayasuriya has 300+ wickets. Being MoM in WC final is nowhere near enough to be ATG in ODIs, that's just 1 match. Kohli is grilled only because he's in the talks for GOAT in ODIs, Stokes is nowhere near close to that (he is not even a highly ranked ODI player)

Brother, Stokes has a total 5 scores of 80+ in WC 2019 and his inning in WC final was one of the most clutch innings played in finals because he had to fight it till the last bowl and even in super over. That's an excellent WC.

de silva has an odi average of 34 with bat and Stokes is definitely a better bowler than de Silva.

Stokes is 28, he will play more and have more runs and more wickets but legacy is intact IMO.
 
Brother, Stokes has a total 5 scores of 80+ in WC 2019 and his inning in WC final was one of the most clutch innings played in finals because he had to fight it till the last bowl and even in super over. That's an excellent WC.

de silva has an odi average of 34 with bat and Stokes is definitely a better bowler than de Silva.

Stokes is 28, he will play more and have more runs and more wickets but legacy is intact IMO.

I know so many major non cricketing fans who are not Asian either in England and have been following Cricket this year since the World cup started. Almost all of them love Ben Stokes, He has inspired a generation and bought so many viewers to this great sport. I was so shocked to see how many people were tuned into the Ashes and most of these guys wouldn't even know 1 proper rule of Cricket before this summer!
 
Last edited:
What a gun. Matchwinner with bat and ball. Steps up in pressure moments. Smith, Kohli, Stokes are biggest matchwinners in world cricket
 
This thread and the Steve Smith thread (before the title was changed) are the two greatest threads in PP history.

Not to forget the countless Tendulkar threads way back in 2004-2007.

Stokes is an amazing clutch player.
 
So he’s the biggest match winner in the world and one of the best players because... he cleaned up SA tail
 
One of the greatest players to have ever played the game. Frankly I don’t care how his stats fare up against the other all-rounders of today or yesterday. In my book he is among the top 10 all-rounders to have ever played the game.
 
His bowling has clearly regressed and he looked poor for the best part of the day, but once again he turned up when things looked bleak for England. His mentality is remarkable.
 
Absolutely phenomenal player.

would walk into any cricket team in the world.

Excellent batsmen, excellent bowler, excellent fielder - can do it all. A remarkable turn out.

I will be the first to accept that I was skeptical of all the hype a few years back and thought he would struggle to bounce back after the World Cup T20 final and the run in at the night club - but boy has he proved me and many of his critics wrong.

His performance in the World Cup Final, the Ashes match at Leeds and even in this Test match are absolutely unbelievable.
 
Can anyone tell me how good was Lance Klusner (especially with the ball) in his prime? I remember his exploits in 1999 WC but i was too young. If you have to pick b/w Klusner vs Stokes, whom will you pick in your team?. Stokes is easily the best allrounder currently in world cricket. He is a genuine matchwinner in both test and limited overs cricket.
 
You need a good offie to tame him. Ashwin got him 7 out of 8 Tests. Lyon has dismissed him 6 times. They are the best against him.
 
One of the greatest players to have ever played the game. Frankly I don’t care how his stats fare up against the other all-rounders of today or yesterday. In my book he is among the top 10 all-rounders to have ever played the game.

How is he one of the greatest players to have played the game?
What's his strong suit? Batting or bowling?
 
One of the greatest players to have ever played the game. Frankly I don’t care how his stats fare up against the other all-rounders of today or yesterday. In my book he is among the top 10 all-rounders to have ever played the game.


Ben stokes will go on to be the greatest cricketer of this decade, just like cook and Anderson were the greatest cricketers of the last decade
 
He is the best all rounder in the history of the game, won England the world cup, test matches and what not. All time great and no one even from the past comes close to it.
 
He wins games. When he can't do that, he changes games.

I rate him very highly, stating he is the second best player in the world after Smith from some time. And he si catching up quickly if not already done.

That question I asked was to this particular poster.
 
He is the best all rounder in the history of the game, won England the world cup, test matches and what not. All time great and no one even from the past comes close to it.

Lost a world T20 final as well from an impossible position to lose lol
 
He is the best all rounder in the history of the game, won England the world cup, test matches and what not. All time great and no one even from the past comes close to it.

Imran , kapil, won world cups for their respective countries and performed admirably with both bat and ball over a long period, even though I rate stokes highly hes definitely not the best allrounder ever lol, neither of his diciplines are at the moment world class bar his fielding
 
Can influence a game from anywhere at anytime in any format in any conditions.
He is an ATG full stop. Number junkies can go keep searching for statsguru filters to pick holes.

Every captain in the world would give an arm and leg to have Ben Stokes in their team.
 
One of the greatest cricketers of our generation, one of the most impact players this game has ever seen.
 
Balls of steel, one of the few English cricketers to stand up and be counted in crunch moments time and again. What an amazing story of redemption.
 
So he’s the biggest match winner in the world and one of the best players because... he cleaned up SA tail

Yes we should reserve that term for Umar Akmal instead.

Did you watch the Headingley Test and World Cup final by any chance ?
 
He is a quality player but not sure if he impacted this game as much with both his exploits. He took the three wickets of tailenders, not sure how you declare that as a match winning performance? That 72 of 47 was excellent though.

He is England's greatest cricketer IMO since Botham but that doesn't mean every time he performs, we will say that, " he steps up when matters". Atleast one should put valid arguments.
 
He is a quality player but not sure if he impacted this game as much with both his exploits. He took the three wickets of tailenders, not sure how you declare that as a match winning performance? That 72 of 47 was excellent though.

He is England's greatest cricketer IMO since Botham but that doesn't mean every time he performs, we will say that, " he steps up when matters". Atleast one should put valid arguments.

Okay, SA came close to drawing this test. Was a great match, missed out completely. Terrific performance from Stokes overall.
 
Yes he is overrated. ,38 batting average with 40. Bowling average. The likes of Kallis are much better.
 
How is he one of the greatest players to have played the game?
What's his strong suit? Batting or bowling?

Who says all-rounders cannot be amongst the greatest cricketers of all time? Of course they can be, but the point is that you cannot compare them to specialist players because they are a distinct category.

For example, you cannot compare Stokes to Kohli and Smith and conclude that Stokes is a better cricketer because he can do more things. That would be greatly unfair to the latter because you are undermining their status as legendary batsmen just because they are not good bowlers.

For example, would England give up Stokes to have Kohli or Smith in their team? They probably would, because the addition of a hugely prolific master batsman would take pressure off Root’s shoulders and would ensure that England consistently score enough runs to not need Stokes’ bowling and fielding.

While Stokes is an excellent batsman who is capable of extraordinary innings, he is not a better batsman than Kohli and Smith (at least not in Tests).

However, Stokes deserves to be a considered as a giant of the game now because he is far ahead of other all-rounder of his generation and has achieved enough by now to be considered among the top 10 all-rounders of all time. By the time he retires, he should be pushing for a top 3 spot if his career continues in this trajectory.
 
Ben stokes will go on to be the greatest cricketer of this decade, just like cook and Anderson were the greatest cricketers of the last decade

Cook and Anderson were the greatest cricketers of the 2010 decade in the same world where Man United are the greatest team in the world today and pigs fly.

In the real world where we live, Kohli was by far the greatest player of the 2010 decade.

If you want to have the last word by repeating yourself so that I also repeat myself and we go back and forth, well that is not goin to happen.

If you want to have the last word you can have the last word.
 
How is he one of the greatest players to have played the game?
What's his strong suit? Batting or bowling?

His strong suit is performing in crunch situations and winning games
 
Cook and Anderson were the greatest cricketers of the 2010 decade in the same world where Man United are the greatest team in the world today and pigs fly.

In the real world where we live, Kohli was by far the greatest player of the 2010 decade.

If you want to have the last word by repeating yourself so that I also repeat myself and we go back and forth, well that is not goin to happen.

If you want to have the last word you can have the last word.

Everyone is entitled to a opinion
 
Yes he is overrated. ,38 batting average with 40. Bowling average. The likes of Kallis are much better.

There is a reason people consider Ponting over Kallis, Viv over Chappell and Donald over Pollock. Stokes has that x-factor that makes a player great. He stands up in big moments and wins game for England. WHile Kallis could be considered better, I would not consider him much better
 
There is a reason people consider Ponting over Kallis, Viv over Chappell and Donald over Pollock. Stokes has that x-factor that makes a player great. He stands up in big moments and wins game for England. WHile Kallis could be considered better, I would not consider him much better

You gave better examples but in Chappells case he was unlucky he got overshadowed by DK Lillie,his elder brother in his team and then by Viv .
He was an elegant player unlike others you mentioned in that list.
 
How is he one of the greatest players to have played the game?
What's his strong suit? Batting or bowling?

This is still true.

What has changed from 2016 is that instead of being a choker in big matches, he has turned that around and kudos to him for that.

At the same time, a lot of his reputation is a consequence of the incredibly lucky English WC win which included help from ICC when they were on the verge of getting knocked out in the group stages.

I can see why English fans rate him highly similar to how Sehwag was loved by Indian fans in the 2000s.
 
Who says all-rounders cannot be amongst the greatest cricketers of all time? Of course they can be, but the point is that you cannot compare them to specialist players because they are a distinct category.

For example, you cannot compare Stokes to Kohli and Smith and conclude that Stokes is a better cricketer because he can do more things. That would be greatly unfair to the latter because you are undermining their status as legendary batsmen just because they are not good bowlers.

For example, would England give up Stokes to have Kohli or Smith in their team? They probably would, because the addition of a hugely prolific master batsman would take pressure off Root’s shoulders and would ensure that England consistently score enough runs to not need Stokes’ bowling and fielding.

While Stokes is an excellent batsman who is capable of extraordinary innings, he is not a better batsman than Kohli and Smith (at least not in Tests).

However, Stokes deserves to be a considered as a giant of the game now because he is far ahead of other all-rounder of his generation and has achieved enough by now to be considered among the top 10 all-rounders of all time. By the time he retires, he should be pushing for a top 3 spot if his career continues in this trajectory.

You didn't answer what is Stokes best suit, batting or bowling?

You know where I am going it's why you are truing to avoid answering the question.
 
You didn't answer what is Stokes best suit, batting or bowling?

You know where I am going it's why you are truing to avoid answering the question.

I did answer, hence my explanation that Kohli and Smith are more valuable Test cricketers than Stokes because of their superior batting and why it is not appropriate to conclude that Stokes is a better cricketer because he is an all-rounder.

Of course I know where you are going. Every argument that you make is fueled by your phobia of Indian players. Since you were inadvertently going to drag the likes of Kohli and Tendulkar in this thread because of your obsession, I did you a favor by doing the honors myself.
 
No problem admitting that I never rated this guy. But he has done the unthinkable and played a clutch knock to win a world cup for England. I don't think he will ever be a consistent cricketer like a kallis but England need a maverick like him to hit that higher gear either with the bat or bowl the odd thunderbolt to change the nature of a match.

May not be the greatest all-rounder of all time but he has definitely proven himself to the undisputed no.1 as far as current English all-rounders go and , unless England are stupid enough to play more than 1 all-rounder in tests, it's high time moeen Bhai looks for another profession.
 
Can anyone tell me how good was Lance Klusner (especially with the ball) in his prime? I remember his exploits in 1999 WC but i was too young. If you have to pick b/w Klusner vs Stokes, whom will you pick in your team?. Stokes is easily the best allrounder currently in world cricket. He is a genuine matchwinner in both test and limited overs cricket.

Klusener took his 100th wicket in his 70th match. He was a good bowler as far as Odis are concerned.
 
Right now he is the best all-rounder,only Jason holder comes close in tests.
 
I did answer, hence my explanation that Kohli and Smith are more valuable Test cricketers than Stokes because of their superior batting and why it is not appropriate to conclude that Stokes is a better cricketer because he is an all-rounder.

Of course I know where you are going. Every argument that you make is fueled by your phobia of Indian players. Since you were inadvertently going to drag the likes of Kohli and Tendulkar in this thread because of your obsession, I did you a favor by doing the honors myself.

Actually, you are the one who have a phobia about pakistani players.

And no you didn't answer, what is Stokes strong suit, batting or bowling? I didn't asked if he is better or not than Kohli, Smith.
 
So he’s the biggest match winner in the world and one of the best players because... he cleaned up SA tail

And won England the world cup final, or rather had the biggest impact of the 22 on field.

Saved England in the ashes with a draw and has been impressive in several other lowe4bprofile games.

He is currently the most clutch player going. Is he an atg? That is yet to be figured out.
 
No problem admitting that I never rated this guy. But he has done the unthinkable and played a clutch knock to win a world cup for England. I don't think he will ever be a consistent cricketer like a kallis but England need a maverick like him to hit that higher gear either with the bat or bowl the odd thunderbolt to change the nature of a match.

May not be the greatest all-rounder of all time but he has definitely proven himself to the undisputed no.1 as far as current English all-rounders go and , unless England are stupid enough to play more than 1 all-rounder in tests, it's high time moeen Bhai looks for another profession.

Yup someone who can push you over the edge.
 
Actually, you are the one who have a phobia about pakistani players.

And no you didn't answer, what is Stokes strong suit, batting or bowling? I didn't asked if he is better or not than Kohli, Smith.

Batting. Again, I have literally explained that in my previous post already.
 
Batting. Again, I have literally explained that in my previous post already.

Ok.

According to you, when we compare an all rounder with another player, only his stronger suit should be considered. Am I right?

Quoiting you from another thread :
It is not appropriate to compare two cricketers based on their all-round skills. You have to consider their speciality and then compare them.

For example, if you are comparing Imran and Tendulkar, you have to compare Imran’s bowling to Tendulkar’s batting.

And you go on to say as Tendulkar's batting is better than Khan's bowling, Tendulkar is better.

So when we compare Stokes with other cricketers, only his batting will count?
So I have some one word questions to you :
Who is the better batsman :
Stokes or Warner?
Stokes or Pujara?
Stokes or Rahane?
Stokes or Williamson?
Stokes or Babar?
Stokes or Root?
Stokes or Faf du Plessis?

Who is the better player:
Stokes or Warner?
Stokes or Pujara?
Stokes or Rahane?
Stokes or Williamson?
Stokes or Babar?
Stokes or Root?
Stokes or Faf du Plessis?
 
This could be a very lengthy post so I will try to keep it brief as much as I can.

Ok.

According to you, when we compare an all rounder with another player, only his stronger suit should be considered. Am I right?

Correct.

Ideally, all-rounders should not be compared to specialist players. However, if you are going to establish a comparison between an all-rounder and a specialist batsman or bowler, you have to take into consideration the stronger suit of the all-rounder.

Quoiting you from another thread :


And you go on to say as Tendulkar's batting is better than Khan's bowling, Tendulkar is better.

So when we compare Stokes with other cricketers, only his batting will count?
So I have some one word questions to you :
Who is the better batsman :
Stokes or Warner?
Stokes or Pujara?
Stokes or Rahane?
Stokes or Williamson?
Stokes or Babar?
Stokes or Root?
Stokes or Faf du Plessis?

Who is the better player:
Stokes or Warner?
Stokes or Pujara?
Stokes or Rahane?
Stokes or Williamson?
Stokes or Babar?
Stokes or Root?
Stokes or Faf du Plessis?

My answers for the better batsmen and better player are the same. I don’t like distinctions between the terms batsmen/bowler, player and cricketer.

If you are a world class batsman/bowler than you are automatically a world class player/cricketer as well. I don’t believe that you have to be multi-skilled to be considered a great player/cricketer.

Stokes or Warner? I would say Stokes by just a whisker because Warner is a walking wicket in the majority of countries in Test cricket. He is very average when the ball swings, seams or spins.

Stokes or Pujara? Obviously Stokes in Limited Overs, but as far as Test cricket is concerned, it depends on the composition of the team. If your batting lineup is full of stroke players, you would pick Pujara because he is a rock at #3.

However, if you have already have grinders in the team, Stokes would be more useful with his explosive batting in the middle-order.

For India, Pujara would be more useful than Stokes because he allows the other stroke players like Kohli, Sharma, Rahul, Agarwal, Dhawan, Shaw etc. to play around him.

Someone like Stokes would not improve that lineup much considering they are already capable of scoring big and scoring quick.

Stokes or Rahane? I would go with Stokes, because Rahane is a not a world class batsman and is in fact quite inconsistent. Hence, I would go for the batsman who has the capacity to play more game-changing innings.

As a general rule - I would take Stokes over any Test batsman who averages below 50 (except Root), because Stokes with an average of 36 is worth more than a batsman averaging in the 40s because of his ability to play outrageous innings.

Stokes or Williamson? Stokes. While Root is often cited as the weakest member of the Fab Four, it is actually Williamson who is the most overrated batsman of his generation. His record in every major country is ordinary and he fills his boots against weak sides.

A great batsman against average bowling but an average batsman against great bowling. Hence, I will go with Stokes because Williamson is incapable of the type of knocks that he plays.

Stokes or Babar? At the moment, I would say Stokes but if you ask me in 12-24 months time I might side with Babar. For now, Stokes is more capable of playing superior innings and changing the tempo of a game.

Stokes or Root? I consider Root to be a 50+ averaging batsman and that was his average for the most of his career anyway. However, because of captaincy, he is going through a temporary dip. Nevertheless, he is a brilliant batsman who rarely fails against any attack in any conditions.

Assuming that Root is at his prolific best, an England team with Stokes and without Root would be weaker than an England team with Root and without Stokes.

If Root is scoring heavily, England can compensate for the absence of Stokes. However, without Root, England cannot score enough runs for Stokes to make an impact.

Stokes or Faf? Stokes, because he is a better batsman than Faf now.

It is important to note that while Stokes easily walks into every team in the world in every format, he is hardly going to replace the best specialist batsmen in the top sides like India, Australia and England.

The likes of India and Australia would definitely love to have him in any format, but they would not want him in the team at the expense of batsmen like Kohli, Rohit, Smith, Warner and even Labuschagne.

This illustrates that it is misleading to say that Stokes is the best or second best cricketer in the world. No, he is the best all-rounder in the world and he should only be compared to other all-rounders.

By stating that Stokes is the best player in the world, you are creating the impression that any team would drop any player to accommodate Stokes, which is not true.
 
I wish Pakistan currently had a player with even half of the skills Ben Stokes has.

This guy can win matches with bat, ball or in the field. Mentally tough, a complete match-winner.

And we have Faheem Ashraf!
 
This could be a very lengthy post so I will try to keep it brief as much as I can.



Correct.


Ideally, all-rounders should not be compared to specialist players. However, if you are going to establish a comparison between an all-rounder and a specialist batsman or bowler, you have to take into consideration the stronger suit of the all-rounder.



My answers for the better batsmen and better player are the same. I don’t like distinctions between the terms batsmen/bowler, player and cricketer.

If you are a world class batsman/bowler than you are automatically a world class player/cricketer as well. I don’t believe that you have to be multi-skilled to be considered a great player/cricketer.

The only major difference between you and me when comparing and rating player is bias. I have no bias for any team or player. The only team I don't support is India, but even then I rate them and their players.

You have to always make these new illogical rules that when you compare an all rounder to a specialist player only his strong suit counts just to fit your agenda.

That means, Stokes taking these three wickets ad nothing to his stature as a player? His superb 5 wickets hauls in the ashes don't ad anything to his stature?
Stokes or Warner? I would say Stokes by just a whisker because Warner is a walking wicket in the majority of countries in Test cricket. He is very average when the ball swings, seams or spins.

Stokes or Pujara? Obviously Stokes in Limited Overs, but as far as Test cricket is concerned, it depends on the composition of the team. If your batting lineup is full of stroke players, you would pick Pujara because he is a rock at #3.

However, if you have already have grinders in the team, Stokes would be more useful with his explosive batting in the middle-order.

For India, Pujara would be more useful than Stokes because he allows the other stroke players like Kohli, Sharma, Rahul, Agarwal, Dhawan, Shaw etc. to play around him.

Someone like Stokes would not improve that lineup much considering they are already capable of scoring big and scoring quick.

Stokes or Rahane? I would go with Stokes, because Rahane is a not a world class batsman and is in fact quite inconsistent. Hence, I would go for the batsman who has the capacity to play more game-changing innings.

As a general rule - I would take Stokes over any Test batsman who averages below 50 (except Root), because Stokes with an average of 36 is worth more than a batsman averaging in the 40s because of his ability to play outrageous innings.

Stokes or Williamson? Stokes. While Root is often cited as the weakest member of the Fab Four, it is actually Williamson who is the most overrated batsman of his generation. His record in every major country is ordinary and he fills his boots against weak sides.

A great batsman against average bowling but an average batsman against great bowling. Hence, I will go with Stokes because Williamson is incapable of the type of knocks that he plays.

Stokes or Babar? At the moment, I would say Stokes but if you ask me in 12-24 months time I might side with Babar. For now, Stokes is more capable of playing superior innings and changing the tempo of a game.

Stokes or Root? I consider Root to be a 50+ averaging batsman and that was his average for the most of his career anyway. However, because of captaincy, he is going through a temporary dip. Nevertheless, he is a brilliant batsman who rarely fails against any attack in any conditions.

Assuming that Root is at his prolific best, an England team with Stokes and without Root would be weaker than an England team with Root and without Stokes.

If Root is scoring heavily, England can compensate for the absence of Stokes. However, without Root, England cannot score enough runs for Stokes to make an impact.

Stokes or Faf? Stokes, because he is a better batsman than Faf now.

It is important to note that while Stokes easily walks into every team in the world in every format, he is hardly going to replace the best specialist batsmen in the top sides like India, Australia and England.

The likes of India and Australia would definitely love to have him in any format, but they would not want him in the team at the expense of batsmen like Kohli, Rohit, Smith, Warner and even Labuschagne.

I certainly disagree with most. Apart from Rahane and Babar, Stokes, so far, is an inferior batsman to all other for me. I also don't look towards averages but still someone like Williamson and Root is a more well rounded batsman than Stokes. But Stokes is a superior player due to his all round ability.

He will probably end superior to Faf, Pujara and Warner as pure batsman but these guys have achieved more so far.
This illustrates that it is misleading to say that Stokes is the best or second best cricketer in the world. No, he is the best all-rounder in the world and he should only be compared to other all-rounders.

By stating that Stokes is the best player in the world, you are creating the impression that any team would drop any player to accommodate Stokes, which is not true.
Stokes will make any World XI at the moment, and him not being in it will be the biggest miss along, maybe, Steven Smith.

From 3 to 5 if you have the following :
Williamson, Smith, Kohli or Root, Smith, Kohli, or Williamson, Smith, Root, or even without Smith, Williamson, Kohli, Root it will not be that much a disaster. Because they can replace each other, and if it's on current form you can even have Babar, Labu, or the likes of Taylor, Pujara, taking on spot and the if one of Root, Williamson, Kohli and Smith (not sure for Smith) is missing it will not be a disaster.
Where as, Stokes value is just too much, you can't replace him by anyone. The quality of the team changes drastically if he is or he isn't in the team. He is the most valuable cricketer in the world at the moment.
 
I wish Pakistan currently had a player with even half of the skills Ben Stokes has.

This guy can win matches with bat, ball or in the field. Mentally tough, a complete match-winner.

And we have Faheem Ashraf!
He is probably the best fielder in the world these days. To watch him field during the world cup was such a pleasure with so many balls going to him.
His catching ability in the slips is also remarkable.
 
The only major difference between you and me when comparing and rating player is bias. I have no bias for any team or player. The only team I don't support is India, but even then I rate them and their players.

You have to always make these new illogical rules that when you compare an all rounder to a specialist player only his strong suit counts just to fit your agenda.

That means, Stokes taking these three wickets ad nothing to his stature as a player? His superb 5 wickets hauls in the ashes don't ad anything to his stature?


I certainly disagree with most. Apart from Rahane and Babar, Stokes, so far, is an inferior batsman to all other for me. I also don't look towards averages but still someone like Williamson and Root is a more well rounded batsman than Stokes. But Stokes is a superior player due to his all round ability.

He will probably end superior to Faf, Pujara and Warner as pure batsman but these guys have achieved more so far.

Stokes will make any World XI at the moment, and him not being in it will be the biggest miss along, maybe, Steven Smith.

From 3 to 5 if you have the following :
Williamson, Smith, Kohli or Root, Smith, Kohli, or Williamson, Smith, Root, or even without Smith, Williamson, Kohli, Root it will not be that much a disaster. Because they can replace each other, and if it's on current form you can even have Babar, Labu, or the likes of Taylor, Pujara, taking on spot and the if one of Root, Williamson, Kohli and Smith (not sure for Smith) is missing it will not be a disaster.
Where as, Stokes value is just too much, you can't replace him by anyone. The quality of the team changes drastically if he is or he isn't in the team. He is the most valuable cricketer in the world at the moment.

Your are extremely biased against Indian players and it for everyone to see. You can call yourself impartial as much as you want, but the truth is that you are not.

Moreover, I actually agree with you that Stokes would walk into any team in the world in any format. It is something that I explicitly mentioned in my previous post. However, I disagree with you that he can replace anyone (except Smith) and is irreplaceable for any side.

That is strictly not true. No team in the world would want Stokes over Kohli in any format, and no Test side would want Stokes over Smith.

For a poor team like Pakistan, would Kohli or Smith be more useful or Stokes? Definitely Kohli and Smith, because the volume of runs that they would bring to the side would be more useful than Stokes’ all-round skills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top