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

[Mobashir]

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.

Root volume of runs is near what Kohli produces and we can clearly see who is the most important member of the team.

You didn't answer, yet again, Stokes important match winnings spells don't anything to his stature as a cricketer?

 

[therealAB]

Root volume of runs is near what Kohli produces and we can clearly see who is the most important member of the team.

You didn't answer, yet again, Stokes important match winnings spells don't anything to his stature as a cricketer?

Did you read what he wrote. Smith and Kohli are as big matchwinners in test cricket, doing it at a higher volume. Root's volume is way way less that Kohli/Smith.

Players with lower stats that excell under pressure tend to become overrated at times. VVS Laxman has a reputation as a matchwinner, but SRT would have won as many matches for India, people just don't see this because of his statistical brilliance. Just because someone is a matchwinner doesn't automatically mean they are a better cricketer. Kallis>Stokes for example.

 

[therealAB]

Match defining contributions over past 12 months: i.e would not have won without player
Stokes
3rd Ashes test
most recent test*2. Both batting and bowling necessary to win test
3rd test vs WI. Debatable, but saved England from a collapse in first innings and batted well in 2nd innings
Total = 4
Smith
1st Ashes test*2
4th ashes test*2
Total = 4
Kohli
Pune 254*
most recent hundred vs Bangladesh
Pretty down year for Kohli though, had 5 the year before so just an abberation for me.

I think that shows that they are equal a matchwinners, but Smith and Kohli are better in the other games, being more consistent which makes them better players.

By the way Mamoon Root has no matchwinning performances, so despite a nice looking average he really isn't great. Still agree with you on most points though

 

[Mamoon]

Root volume of runs is near what Kohli produces and we can clearly see who is the most important member of the team.

You didn't answer, yet again, Stokes important match winnings spells don't anything to his stature as a cricketer?

Root does not produce the same volume of runs. He is conversion rate is poor and he doesn’t get those big hundreds and double-hundreds as frequently as Kohli. The overall aggregate of runs is similar because Root has played more innings and he hit the ground running in Test cricket unlike Kohli who took a while to become an elite Test batsman.

However, since Kohli took his Test game to the next level in 2016, Root has not been able to touch him.

Kohli is a better batsman than anyone England has ever produced. Even Pietersen with all his match-winning capabilities is nowhere close to him. England would be happy to give up both Root and Stokes to have Kohli in the team.

Stokes’ match-winning spells do add to his stature. That is why he is the best all-rounder in the world and among the top 10 of all time already. However, again, you have to compare him to other all-rounders and not specialist players.

His all-round skills do not make him a better cricketer than an elite batsman or an elite bowler. If we start rating players for their all-round skills then the list of the top 10 greatest players in history would only consist of all-rounders.

A world class batsman/bowler is as good a cricketer as a world class all-rounder. They simply have different roles.

 

[Mamoon]

Match defining contributions over past 12 months: i.e would not have won without player
Stokes
3rd Ashes test
most recent test*2. Both batting and bowling necessary to win test
3rd test vs WI. Debatable, but saved England from a collapse in first innings and batted well in 2nd innings
Total = 4
Smith
1st Ashes test*2
4th ashes test*2
Total = 4
Kohli
Pune 254*
most recent hundred vs Bangladesh
Pretty down year for Kohli though, had 5 the year before so just an abberation for me.

I think that shows that they are equal a matchwinners, but Smith and Kohli are better in the other games, being more consistent which makes them better players.

By the way Mamoon Root has no matchwinning performances, so despite a nice looking average he really isn't great. Still agree with you on most points though

Yes not in the last 12 months. His last match-winning performance was about 14 months ago in Sri Lanka.

 

[Robert]

Root does not produce the same volume of runs. He is conversion rate is poor and he doesn’t get those big hundreds and double-hundreds as frequently as Kohli. The overall aggregate of runs is similar because Root has played more innings and he hit the ground running in Test cricket unlike Kohli who took a while to become an elite Test batsman.

Kohli is a better batsman than anyone England has ever produced.

Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton and Compton might beg to differ.

Please stop making these hyperbolic comments, they undermine your arguments.

 

[Manunited18]

Hobbs, Hammond, peterson, gower, cook, gooch, are the players I would put ahead of kohli at the moment in test cricket, sorry SIR alister cook for you mamoon.

 

[Mamoon]

Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton and Compton might beg to differ.

Please stop making these hyperbolic comments, they undermine your arguments.

None of these batsmen are better than Kohli. If they play in the same team with the same skills of their respective eras it wouldn’t be a competition.

You can see the footage of Sir Jack Hobbs. With that technique of his, he wouldn’t even be a number 11 in today’s cricket.

You can believe that the standard of cricket has remained consistent (or even declined) for nearly a century, but I don’t.

In my opinion, the standard of cricket has only been consistent and comparable from 1970s onwards, and the pre and post WWII era players (until the 60s) are not comparable to modern players.

The difficulty level has increased considerably to the point that Sir Hobbs and Sir Hutton cannot be compared to Gavaskar or Sir Viv or Kohli.

They however are still legends of the game who have made immense contributions to the evolution of the game. Ultimately, a cricketer should be judged against his peers and not with future or previous generations.

 

[Robert]

Watching Hobbs doing a training film against deliberately ultra slow net bowling does not show you what his technique was like.

I don’t think the difficulty level has changed. The required skill set has changed. Modern batters are physically stronger and can hit more sixes, but their defensive techniques are weaker because they play on flat decks with much better armour. Hobbs played on cow tracks, bunsens and stickies with lavish movement and wore minimal armour so his defensive technique was better. Indeed - he developed the batting techniques on which today’s batters rely.

Having said that I firmly believe that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era as they have the sheer will to keep improving and get to the top.

 

[Ab Fan]

Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton and Compton might beg to differ.

Please stop making these hyperbolic comments, they undermine your arguments.

Compton would have been termed a Warner or Mahela level home track bully in this era.

 

[therealAB]

None of these batsmen are better than Kohli. If they play in the same team with the same skills of their respective eras it wouldn’t be a competition.

You can see the footage of Sir Jack Hobbs. With that technique of his, he wouldn’t even be a number 11 in today’s cricket.

You can believe that the standard of cricket has remained consistent (or even declined) for nearly a century, but I don’t.

In my opinion, the standard of cricket has only been consistent and comparable from 1970s onwards, and the pre and post WWII era players (until the 60s) are not comparable to modern players.

The difficulty level has increased considerably to the point that Sir Hobbs and Sir Hutton cannot be compared to Gavaskar or Sir Viv or Kohli.

They however are still legends of the game who have made immense contributions to the evolution of the game. Ultimately, a cricketer should be judged against his peers and not with future or previous generations.

What about Sobers, as he had significant overlap with Hutton

 

[topspin]

Watching Hobbs doing a training film against deliberately ultra slow net bowling does not show you what his technique was like.

I don’t think the difficulty level has changed. The required skill set has changed. Modern batters are physically stronger and can hit more sixes, but their defensive techniques are weaker because they play on flat decks with much better armour. Hobbs played on cow tracks, bunsens and stickies with lavish movement and wore minimal armour so his defensive technique was better. Indeed - he developed the batting techniques on which today’s batters rely.

Having said that I firmly believe that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era as they have the sheer will to keep improving and get to the top.

Pipe down with your old era hype. You are so biased.

As Mamoon said if Hobbs was batting with that technique today he wouldn't even be a number 11 in the present era.

Even Jack Leach is a better batsman.

 

[topspin]

Anyone who takes [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] seriously should ought to watch this:

 

[anoop]

Anyone who takes [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] seriously should ought to watch this:

Seems like a gully cricketer. Wouldn't even get selected in any first class cricket team.

 

[andy0204]

Pipe down with your old era hype. You are so biased.

As Mamoon said if Hobbs was batting with that technique today he wouldn't even be a number 11 in the present era.

Even Jack Leach is a better batsman.

Old hype must be there,how you will feel when future generation call Viv Richards,Sunil Gavaskar,Tendulkar,Lara useless.

 

[anoop]

Old hype must be there,how you will feel when future generation call Viv Richards,Sunil Gavaskar,Tendulkar,Lara useless.

Tendulkar, gavaskar with their technique will survive in today's test cricket, Hobbs won't.

 

[andy0204]

Tendulkar, gavaskar with their technique will survive in today's test cricket, Hobbs won't.

What about Steve Smith?

 

[Mean&Green]

I thought he use to be overrated at the start of his career I was more assured after his choke in the t20 final. Than he played the World Cup and than that test match he’s totally changed everyone’s view about him and especially mine he is word class. The most overrated cricketer is faf du plesis that guy is utter trash I don’t even know how he’s on the top ten odi batsman rankings utter disgrace to the rankings

 

[Mamoon]

What about Sobers, as he had significant overlap with Hutton

A big factor for Sobers’ legend was the fact that he was the only proper all-rounder in the 60s who could bat, bowl and catch.

Had he played alongside the next generation of Botham, Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Rice etc., his legacy would have been somewhat different.

Was he a better batsman than someone like Stokes today? If Stokes is transported to his time would Sobers still be the undisputed best all-rounder?

If Sobers played for West Indies today (with the same skills) would he have the same status that he had in the 60s?

Sobers bowled fast (for those standards), medium and spin and he was apparently adept at all three. However, such stunts cannot be pulled off in the modern game.

Today, a bowler cannot be successful if he bowls pace, medium and spin together. He has to stick to one and become international class in his speciality.

The fact that Sobers excelled as a bowler while bowling all three clearly illustrates the lack of competitiveness of his era.

 

[Robert]

Compton would have been termed a Warner or Mahela level home track bully in this era.

Fair comment. Averaged about 65 at home, 35 overseas. Didn’t travel well.

 

[James]

Not a stats obsessive, but as the OP is about stats - Stokes now averages 36 with the bat and 32 with the ball. For an all-rounder that’s pretty good.

 

[therealAB]

A big factor for Sobers’ legend was the fact that he was the only proper all-rounder in the 60s who could bat, bowl and catch.

Had he played alongside the next generation of Botham, Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Rice etc., his legacy would have been somewhat different.

Was he a better batsman than someone like Stokes today? If Stokes is transported to his time would Sobers still be the undisputed best all-rounder?

If Sobers played for West Indies today (with the same skills) would he have the same status that he had in the 60s?

Sobers bowled fast (for those standards), medium and spin and he was apparently adept at all three. However, such stunts cannot be pulled off in the modern game.

Today, a bowler cannot be successful if he bowls pace, medium and spin together. He has to stick to one and become international class in his speciality.

The fact that Sobers excelled as a bowler while bowling all three clearly illustrates the lack of competitiveness of his era.

Do you believe Greg Chappell would be succesful today?

 

[Robert]

A big factor for Sobers’ legend was the fact that he was the only proper all-rounder in the 60s who could bat, bowl and catch.

Had he played alongside the next generation of Botham, Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Rice etc., his legacy would have been somewhat different.

Was he a better batsman than someone like Stokes today? If Stokes is transported to his time would Sobers still be the undisputed best all-rounder?

If Sobers played for West Indies today (with the same skills) would he have the same status that he had in the 60s?

Sobers bowled fast (for those standards), medium and spin and he was apparently adept at all three. However, such stunts cannot be pulled off in the modern game.

Today, a bowler cannot be successful if he bowls pace, medium and spin together. He has to stick to one and become international class in his speciality.

The fact that Sobers excelled as a bowler while bowling all three clearly illustrates the lack of competitiveness of his era.

Why? He faced excellent bowling like they did and averaged 58. He was considered the best batsman of the 1960s, at the time of Kanhai, Lloyd, Dexter and Boycott. What you are saying in implication is that none of these guys could bat. Well I saw a couple of them, and they could bat.

There's no reason why a bowler can't be successful in the modern era more that one discipline, if he is a genius like Sobers. Botham took a test match fivefer bowling off-breaks. If he had switched to slow bowling and worked more on his batting I believe his career would have lasted longer.

 

[Robert]

Tendulkar, gavaskar with their technique will survive in today's test cricket, Hobbs won't.

But they would not survive in Hobbs' era on uncovered wickets. Well, Gavaskar would because he had an iron defence. Modern batters would be getting bowled and lbw.

 

[Cric1234]

A big factor for Sobers’ legend was the fact that he was the only proper all-rounder in the 60s who could bat, bowl and catch.

Had he played alongside the next generation of Botham, Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Rice etc., his legacy would have been somewhat different.

Was he a better batsman than someone like Stokes today? If Stokes is transported to his time would Sobers still be the undisputed best all-rounder?

If Sobers played for West Indies today (with the same skills) would he have the same status that he had in the 60s?

Sobers bowled fast (for those standards), medium and spin and he was apparently adept at all three. However, such stunts cannot be pulled off in the modern game.

Today, a bowler cannot be successful if he bowls pace, medium and spin together. He has to stick to one and become international class in his speciality.

The fact that Sobers excelled as a bowler while bowling all three clearly illustrates the lack of competitiveness of his era.

He didn’t excel as a bowler in test cricket an average of 34 and a strike rate of 91 tells you that Stokes is better as a test bowler but Sobers batting is well ahead while Stokes is more of a decent lower order attacking batsman.

 

[Mamoon]

He didn’t excel as a bowler in test cricket an average of 34 and a strike rate of 91 tells you that Stokes is better as a test bowler but Sobers batting is well ahead while Stokes is more of a decent lower order attacking batsman.

Those figures are quite good for a bowler who apparently bowled fast, medium and spin. However, a 3 in 1 bowler, a jack of all and master of none would produce far worse figures in a more competitive era of cricket.

 

[anoop]

He didn’t excel as a bowler in test cricket an average of 34 and a strike rate of 91 tells you that Stokes is better as a test bowler but Sobers batting is well ahead while Stokes is more of a decent lower order attacking batsman.

Sobers was quite a good all rounder for 6 years. There was a continuous patch of 6 years where sobers took 127 wickets in 33 matches at an average of 27.5. His batting average in those matches was 63. Tell me who wouldn't want such a player.

 

[Robert]

He didn’t excel as a bowler in test cricket an average of 34 and a strike rate of 91 tells you that Stokes is better as a test bowler but Sobers batting is well ahead while Stokes is more of a decent lower order attacking batsman.

Bear is mind that we don’t know what his figures were for FM, SLA and wrist spin. He got into the side as a SLA and lower order batter. He was good enough to open the bowling ahead of Griffith at times. I suspect that he ‘bought’ wickets with wrist spin when they were not coming from his other styles but I have no proof.

 

[Ab Fan]

Fair comment. Averaged about 65 at home, 35 overseas. Didn’t travel well.

Hence, we shouldn't be mentioning him among the greats of the game as you had mentioned on for Hobbs, Hammond and Hutton.

 

[andy0204]

Fair comment. Averaged about 65 at home, 35 overseas. Didn’t travel well.

Instead of Compton I would have picked Ken Barrington.

 

[Sin Nombre]

None of these batsmen are better than Kohli. If they play in the same team with the same skills of their respective eras it wouldn’t be a competition.

You can see the footage of Sir Jack Hobbs. With that technique of his, he wouldn’t even be a number 11 in today’s cricket.

You can believe that the standard of cricket has remained consistent (or even declined) for nearly a century, but I don’t.

In my opinion, the standard of cricket has only been consistent and comparable from 1970s onwards, and the pre and post WWII era players (until the 60s) are not comparable to modern players.

The difficulty level has increased considerably to the point that Sir Hobbs and Sir Hutton cannot be compared to Gavaskar or Sir Viv or Kohli.

They however are still legends of the game who have made immense contributions to the evolution of the game. Ultimately, a cricketer should be judged against his peers and not with future or previous generations.

Prehistoric players don't count.

Cricket was a complete amateur game until the 70s.

Same for football until the mid-50s.

I have seen full matches of "high-level" football from the 20s. The level of the game was significantly worse than what i see in high school matches.

Cricket was even worse given it was played by prudish "gentlemen" and was not even open to everyone.

 

[Mamoon]

Prehistoric players don't count.

Cricket was a complete amateur game until the 70s.

Same for football until the mid-50s.

I have seen full matches of "high-level" football from the 20s. The level of the game was significantly worse than what i see in high school matches.

Cricket was even worse given it was played by prudish "gentlemen" and was not even open to everyone.

Prehistoric players count for what they achieved at that time relative to their peers. Jack Hobbs is a legend of the game for how he towered over other batsmen of the 1920s.

However, it is also true that Jack Hobbs in 1920 was an inferior batsman compared to someone like Pat Cummins in 2020.

If we invent a new game today and I am the best at it, I will still be a legend even if the game is currently played at a very amateur level. However, I will not be compared to the vastly superior player of the further as the newly invented game evolves into a professional sport.

Jack Hobbs’ batting looks comical today and it is indeed ridiculous to compare his skill level to modern greats, but he must have had some qualities and attributes that allowed him to rise above all the amateurs of his time.

 

[Sin Nombre]

Prehistoric players count for what they achieved at that time relative to their peers. Jack Hobbs is a legend of the game for how he towered over other batsmen of the 1920s.

However, it is also true that Jack Hobbs in 1920 was an inferior batsman compared to someone like Pat Cummins in 2020.

If we invent a new game today and I am the best at it, I will still be a legend even if the game is currently played at a very amateur level. However, I will not be compared to the vastly superior player of the further as the newly invented game evolves into a professional sport.

Jack Hobbs’ batting looks comical today and it is indeed ridiculous to compare his skill level to modern greats, but he must have had some qualities and attributes that allowed him to rise above all the amateurs of his time.

If you call prehistoric cricket a different game to modern cricket and call Hobbs a legend of that sport, then I have no complaints.


The original point which led to a lot of this discussion stands though - England have not produced a single ATG legend batsman.

 

[Bigboii]

Prehistoric players count for what they achieved at that time relative to their peers. Jack Hobbs is a legend of the game for how he towered over other batsmen of the 1920s.

However, it is also true that Jack Hobbs in 1920 was an inferior batsman compared to someone like Pat Cummins in 2020.

If we invent a new game today and I am the best at it, I will still be a legend even if the game is currently played at a very amateur level. However, I will not be compared to the vastly superior player of the further as the newly invented game evolves into a professional sport.

Jack Hobbs’ batting looks comical today and it is indeed ridiculous to compare his skill level to modern greats, but he must have had some qualities and attributes that allowed him to rise above all the amateurs of his time.

Although I agree with your point 100% but to play a devil's advocate pitches back than were really bad and not as well prepared as they are these days even our bad pitches are good compared to thier standards so if they can survive there why can't they devalop skills to survive bowlers on these flat pitches?

 

[Bigboii]

Prehistoric players count for what they achieved at that time relative to their peers. Jack Hobbs is a legend of the game for how he towered over other batsmen of the 1920s.

However, it is also true that Jack Hobbs in 1920 was an inferior batsman compared to someone like Pat Cummins in 2020.

If we invent a new game today and I am the best at it, I will still be a legend even if the game is currently played at a very amateur level. However, I will not be compared to the vastly superior player of the further as the newly invented game evolves into a professional sport.

Jack Hobbs’ batting looks comical today and it is indeed ridiculous to compare his skill level to modern greats, but he must have had some qualities and attributes that allowed him to rise above all the amateurs of his time.

Although I agree with your point but to play a devil's advocate pitches back than were really bad for batting because they were not prepared so if these batsman can survive there than why can't they survive on these flat pitches

 

[Robert]

If you call prehistoric cricket a different game to modern cricket and call Hobbs a legend of that sport, then I have no complaints.


The original point which led to a lot of this discussion stands though - England have not produced a single ATG legend batsman.

It falls. Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton and Compton. Peter May averaged about 46 but was the most clutch player of all.

 

[Robert]

Instead of Compton I would have picked Ken Barrington.

Barrington averaged 58 to May’s 46 yet May is regarded by people who saw them both as better. Barrington was more of an accumulator than a batsman, while May got England out of a lot of scrapes.

 

[Mamoon]

Although I agree with your point 100% but to play a devil's advocate pitches back than were really bad and not as well prepared as they are these days even our bad pitches are good compared to thier standards so if they can survive there why can't they devalop skills to survive bowlers on these flat pitches?

Although I agree with your point but to play a devil's advocate pitches back than were really bad for batting because they were not prepared so if these batsman can survive there than why can't they survive on these flat pitches

Because the bowlers that Hobbs faced would not even make it to professional cricket today.

It is easier to face a mediocre 65-70 mph bowler on a tough pitch compared facing Bumrah or Cummins on a flat wicket.

Besides, the difficulty of those pitches seems to be overstated. The average number of overs bowled per innings was quite high. Either the pitches weren’t as difficult as people make them out to be, or everyone had superb defensive game.

 

[Sin Nombre]

It falls. Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton and Compton. Peter May averaged about 46 but was the most clutch player of all.

All prehistoric.

Played an amateur game with very little participation levels.

 

[Robert]

All prehistoric.

Played an amateur game with very little participation levels.

Prehistory ended around 5500 years ago.

Amateurs were aristocrats who were independently wealthy like CB Fry. Though even he received money from the gate at matches. Hobbs, Hutton, Compton and May were professionals, all salaried and could make good money from book deals in addition to lucrative testimonial seasons.

Participation levels in England were much greater than today. Cricket was a way out of backbreaking dangerous work in the mines and shipyards and foundries, so tens of thousands of lads were desperate for County jobs which didn’t threaten to kill or maim or poison them every shift, and the competition in the leagues was ferocious.

 

[Ted123]

Can't comment much on oldies but either way, it's futile to make comparisons across era.

 

[Sin Nombre]

Prehistory ended around 5500 years ago.

Amateurs were aristocrats who were independently wealthy like CB Fry. Though even he received money from the gate at matches. Hobbs, Hutton, Compton and May were professionals, all salaried and could make good money from book deals in addition to lucrative testimonial seasons.

Participation levels in England were much greater than today. Cricket was a way out of backbreaking dangerous work in the mines and shipyards and foundries, so tens of thousands of lads were desperate for County jobs which didn’t threaten to kill or maim or poison them every shift, and the competition in the leagues was ferocious.

Prehistoric cricket ended in the 70s.
Prehistoric football ended in the 50s.
Prehistoric homo sapien civilization ended 5000 years back.

Tens of thousands of lads is not a lot. There are likely more kids in Dhaka alone who want to play cricket professionally. Also the era of "gentlemen cricketers" continued until at least WW1.

2 cricketing nations, no concept of ground fielding, no concept of genuine pace bowlers, no yorkers, reverse swing, change in pace, 4th-5th wicket line, no variations in spin, no concept of attacking batting.

Cricket was a joke of a sport until the advent of the great Windies team of the 70s and Packer/helmets.

 

[Hyperion66]

Prehistoric cricket ended in the 70s.
Prehistoric football ended in the 50s.
Prehistoric homo sapien civilization ended 5000 years back.

Tens of thousands of lads is not a lot. There are likely more kids in Dhaka alone who want to play cricket professionally. Also the era of "gentlemen cricketers" continued until at least WW1.

2 cricketing nations, no concept of ground fielding, no concept of genuine pace bowlers, no yorkers, reverse swing, change in pace, 4th-5th wicket line, no variations in spin, no concept of attacking batting.

Cricket was a joke of a sport until the advent of the great Windies team of the 70s and Packer/helmets.

Top post.

 

[Robert]

Prehistoric cricket ended in the 70s.
Prehistoric football ended in the 50s.
Prehistoric homo sapien civilization ended 5000 years back.

Tens of thousands of lads is not a lot. There are likely more kids in Dhaka alone who want to play cricket professionally. Also the era of "gentlemen cricketers" continued until at least WW1.

2 cricketing nations, no concept of ground fielding, no concept of genuine pace bowlers, no yorkers, reverse swing, change in pace, 4th-5th wicket line, no variations in spin, no concept of attacking batting.

Cricket was a joke of a sport until the advent of the great Windies team of the 70s and Packer/helmets.

Sure, there were Amateurs even as late as the Bodyline series. But all working class players were Professionals. And the Amateurs still received money for playing.

Tens of thousands was the pool of league players available just for Yorkshire so the standard of competition in England was greater than today. Now only a few fee paying schools produce cricketers. The farm system is less effective than it was fifty years ago.

SA and WI were professional by the thirties, so more than “2 cricketing nations”.

Larwood was at 90 mph in 1930 and everyone bowled Yorkers. Reverse swing is supposed to have been invented in the 1970s and yet Leary Constantine claims that WI bowled it in the thirties. Standards of outfielding have gone up, but I don’t believe catching is any better now. Someone had to catch Larwood’s artillery shells.

Wrist spin was invented by Bosanquet in the 1900s and Hobbs was the first to work out how to overcome it, as well as the orthodox swing which emerged at the same time. Was Warne better than Grimmett and O’Reilly? I don’t know.

The great WI side you refer to emerged as a response to Lillee and Thomson. Ian Chappell said the best fast bowler he faced was John Snow who played in the sixties and was inspired by 90 mph Trueman and Wes Hall. And so on. Nothing new happened under Packer except a rise in wages.

 

[Ab Fan]

Stokes player of the series again.

 

[Mamoon]

The second best cricketer in the world at the moment after Kohli, and marginally ahead of Smith and Bumrah.

 

[someone21]

Somehow keeps failing at IPL. He is lucky because he is the only one is his league, a player who can bat and fast-bowl. Thus, he is seen as premium quality, yet is inconsistent.///

 

[Mobashir]

Somehow keeps failing at IPL. He is lucky because he is the only one is his league, a player who can bat and fast-bowl. Thus, he is seen as premium quality, yet is inconsistent.///

He is winning matches, and a lot of them for England.

 

[Robert]

Stokes player of the series again.

Impressive to see him bowling eight-over spells at near 90 mph. Nudging Wood and Archer speed. This creates pressure and makes the batters do silly things.