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

[Mamoon]

Curious question:

If you were franchise owner, would you shell out 14 crores for Stokes by going all out?

His domestic T20 economy is 8.6 and T20I economy is 9.03. These are his averages. When he gets carted, it gets ugly.

Batting wise, he averages 22 in domestic T20s and 14 in T20I.

As for the wickets column, Stokes has picked up 32 wickets in 77 domestic T20 games and 10 wickets in 21 T20Is.

I will definitely shell-out what it takes to secure the most prized all-rounder in the game today. Not interested in those stats because I know he is a far more dangerous player than that. Much better batsman than someone who averages 22 and 14 in T20s and although he can be expensive with the ball, he has the ability to make crucial breakthroughs.

He will have a great season and won't look expensive then. There is a reason Pune paid a fortune for him, he is a game-changer.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Surprised to see him getting paid that much after the utimate choke he did in the World T20 and that too in India.

Personally won't spend even one quarter on a soft player like him.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I will definitely shell-out what it takes to secure the most prized all-rounder in the game today. Not interested in those stats because I know he is a far more dangerous player than that. Much better batsman than someone who averages 22 and 14 in T20s and although he can be expensive with the ball, he has the ability to make crucial breakthroughs.

He will have a great season and won't look expensive then. There is a reason Pune paid a fortune for him, he is a game-changer.

Stokes is a good player who deserves to get a good price in auctions.

I was curious to know whether you would shell out 14 crores for him and I see that you will.

Interesting.

 

[Mamoon]

What's shocking is players like Rabada going for half the price of Ben.

Perhaps it depends on how much you're able to "lobby" with contacts and PR agencies.

All-rounders are worth more in such leagues. Stokes can win the game with both bat and ball unlike Rabada.

 

[Sub-Zero]

I will definitely shell-out what it takes to secure the most prized all-rounder in the game today. Not interested in those stats because I know he is a far more dangerous player than that. Much better batsman than someone who averages 22 and 14 in T20s and although he can be expensive with the ball, he has the ability to make crucial breakthroughs.

He will have a great season and won't look expensive then. There is a reason Pune paid a fortune for him, he is a game-changer.

The only way he can make crucial breakthroughs is by serving pies to the batsmen and helping the opposition in the breakthrough

6666 Remember the name!

 

[chacha kashmiri]

The only way he can make crucial breakthroughs is by serving pies to the batsmen and helping the opposition in the breakthrough

6666 Remember the name!

You're being a bit over critical

Ben stokes is the next Flintoff
He can get wickets and score runs
Very useful in the team, adds depth to line ups too

 

[Mamoon]

The only way he can make crucial breakthroughs is by serving pies to the batsmen and helping the opposition in the breakthrough

6666 Remember the name!

It happens. Stuart Broad was hit 6,6,6,6,6,6 and he will end up with 500 Test wickets. Stokes is a special player, well ahead of other all-rounders in the game today. He is a better player than Flintoff already who is considered to be England's second best all-rounder after Botham. By the end of his career, Stokes will probably overtake Botham.

 

[Mamoon]

You're being a bit over critical

Ben stokes is the next Flintoff
He can get wickets and score runs
Very useful in the team, adds depth to line ups too

He is better than Flintoff with the bat already, but the former was lethal with the ball on his day. Overall, Stokes has the edge IMO. The challenge for him now is to become better than Botham by the end of his career. Certainly has the ability to do so.

 

[Sub-Zero]

You're being a bit over critical

Ben stokes is the next Flintoff
He can get wickets and score runs
Very useful in the team, adds depth to line ups too

Love Stokes in ODIs and Tests but T20 was never his forte

He has one of the worst bowling economies in t20 history, plus his batting is nothing special.

 

[Mamoon]

I remember the thrashing Misbah gave to Stokes.

He might have some utility, but grossly overrated by some.

The team that bought him are going to regret this forever hahaha . I have no idea who clueless was advising them.

Well he is a better Test batsman outside Asia than Misbah already, and he is not even a specialist batsman.

 

[Mamoon]

Love Stokes in ODIs and Tests but T20 was never his forte

He has one of the worst bowling economies in t20 history, plus his batting is nothing special.

Don't go by stats at this stage of his career. He is only getting into his zone now and his best years are ahead of him. He is a dangerous hitter and is quality in all three formats. England are very lucky to have him and NZ must be rueing that they lost him.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

He is better than Flintoff with the bat already, but the former was lethal with the ball on his day. Overall, Stokes has the edge IMO. The challenge for him now is to become better than Botham by the end of his career. Certainly has the ability to do so.

He has time on his side too
I hope the inevitable captaincy and OBE don't stop his potential
He is the best all rounder since Jacques Kallis

 

[Sub-Zero]

It happens. Stuart Broad was hit 6,6,6,6,6,6 and he will end up with 500 Test wickets. Stokes is a special player, well ahead of other all-rounders in the game today. He is a better player than Flintoff already who is considered to be England's second best all-rounder after Botham. By the end of his career, Stokes will probably overtake Botham.

Matching the stats of tests and t20? What's next? are you gonna say that Azhar Ali is gonna get 10K T20 runs because he is good in tests?:
Love Stokes, I believe he is one of the best all rounders in tests but t20 is not his forte, he has one of the worst bowling economies in t20 history, batting is nothing special either.

 

[Aman]

Overpaid and will flop big time.

Mitch Marsh is better than him in T20's.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Overpaid and will flop big time.

Mitch Marsh is better than him in T20's.

Mitch march is a part time swing bowler
Let's be real about this

A better comparison would be Shane Watson

 

[Mamoon]

He has time on his side too
I hope the inevitable captaincy and OBE don't stop his potential
He is the best all rounder since Jacques Kallis

He is too volatile for captaincy, England likes its captains to be stable. If they don't want to overburden Root with LOI captaincy after Morgan, Buttler will be the number one contender for that job.

After Root gives up Test captaincy in 4-5 years time, the current generation players like Buttler, Bairstow, Stokes will be too old to be consider as replacements. The next English Test captain could be someone like Hameed.

Stokes is a leader though and seems like the ideal man for the vice-captaincy, but I would be surprised if England ever trust him with the captaincy itself.

Agree that he is the best all-rounder since Kallis. Special player, and I knew he was going to make it big since I saw him for Durham in 2011.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Don't go by stats at this stage of his career. He is only getting into his zone now and his best years are ahead of him. He is a dangerous hitter and is quality in all three formats. England are very lucky to have him and NZ must be rueing that they lost him.

sorry bro, this is same as saying that Umar Akmal is gonna be a star, stokes is not good in t20s it is a fact

 

[Aman]

Mitch march is a part time swing bowler
Let's be real about this

A better comparison would be Shane Watson

Shane Watson is miles better than Stokes in LOI's, atm anyway.

 

[Mamoon]

Matching the stats of tests and t20? What's next? are you gonna say that Azhar Ali is gonna get 10K T20 runs because he is good in tests?:
Love Stokes, I believe he is one of the best all rounders in tests but t20 is not his forte, he has one of the worst bowling economies in t20 history, batting is nothing special either.

You don't get it. Stokes is not 31 like Azhar, and he is still developing as a player. The comparison with Azhar is off because Azhar does not have the skill-set to succeed in Limited Overs; he is simply a defensive batsman who can occupy the crease for hours and score only when the ball is in his zone. He is a very limited batsman with superb temperament and concentration, which is why he is excellent in Tests but poor in the shorter formats, where he has too play at a tempo that is not possible for him.

Stokes has all the ingredients to be a high class T20 player. He can hit the ball as hard as anyone and has the ability to provide breakthroughs. However, he needs to work on his variations a bit because at times, he appears one-dimensional as a bowler.

 

[Mamoon]

Overpaid and will flop big time.

Mitch Marsh is better than him in T20's.

Keep doubting him and he will keep proving you wrong, which he has always done. You should accept that you were wrong about him.

Marsh is very good too, people are making the same mistake with him as they did with Stokes. Potentially the second best all-rounder of this era, but he is not Stokes' level.

 

[Mamoon]

sorry bro, this is same as saying that Umar Akmal is gonna be a star, stokes is not good in t20s it is a fact

Another poor comparison. Umar Akmal has been playing international cricket before Stokes made his F/C debut. He has been given too many opportunities unlike Stokes, who only got a breakthrough in international cricket 2-3 years ago.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Shane Watson is miles better than Stokes in LOI's, atm anyway.

Just look at Ben Stokes's strike rate in the recent odi series in India
Phenomenal performance from him

 

[Adil_94]

Stokes is potentially a very good batsman even world class but his bowling is garbage especially on the flat roads that IPL will be played on he will be carted around.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Another poor comparison. Umar Akmal has been playing international cricket before Stokes made his F/C debut. He has been given too many opportunities unlike Stokes, who only got a breakthrough in international cricket 2-3 years ago.

had his t20 and ODI debut in 2011, not worth arguing with you when you are factually wrong, and believe in fantasy

 

[Mamoon]

t20 and ODI debut in 2011, not worth arguing with you when you are factually wrong

Since 2015, Stokes has an average of 41 at a SR of 108 in ODIs, now let that sink in.... I don't care what he averaged in 2011 as a 19 year old, and neither does England. In 2011, Umar's ODI average was touching 40.

Again, I'm not going to look to much into a handful of T20Is. Besides, England have a powerhouse batting lineup in T20s and the likes of Stokes don't get much of an opportunity to play long innings. Their lower-order have to hit from ball one. In due time, his batting average in T20Is is going to go up.

I'm not factually wrong, you are simply not making sense with your illogical assessment and illogical comparisons.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

He is too volatile for captaincy, England likes its captains to be stable. If they don't want to overburden Root with LOI captaincy after Morgan, Buttler will be the number one contender for that job.

After Root gives up Test captaincy in 4-5 years time, the current generation players like Buttler, Bairstow, Stokes will be too old to be consider as replacements. The next English Test captain could be someone like Hameed.

Stokes is a leader though and seems like the ideal man for the vice-captaincy, but I would be surprised if England ever trust him with the captaincy itself.

Agree that he is the best all-rounder since Kallis. Special player, and I knew he was going to make it big since I saw him for Durham in 2011.

Hameed is a good call for future captaincy but I think it's too early to judge, Adil has just got back into the team and Nick Compton is still out of the team

Ben stokes is petulant and volatile but he wears his heart on his sleeves and could really inspire the next generation

 

[Sin Nombre]

All-rounders are worth more in such leagues. Stokes can win the game with both bat and ball unlike Rabada.

Stokes can lose the game with both bat and ball unlike Rabada.

Specialists >>> bits and pieces cricketers

 

[Sub-Zero]

Since 2015, Stokes has an average of 41 at a SR of 108 in ODIs, now let that sink in.... I don't care what he averaged in 2011 as a 19 year old, and neither does England. In 2011, Umar's ODI average was touching 40.

Again, I'm not going to look to much into a handful of T20Is. Besides, England have a powerhouse batting lineup in T20s and the likes of Stokes don't get much of an opportunity to play long innings. Their lower-order have to hit from ball one. In due time, his batting average in T20Is is going to go up.

I'm not factually wrong, you are simply not making sense with your illogical assessment and illogical comparisons.

You are one in a million with your logic,
even Stephen Fleming was upset with his selection


Last 2 years in t20s, 19 matches 209 runs at batting avg of 14.9 and 7 wickets at 8.79 RPO

 

[rhony]

Stokes did well in the India series recently. People don't talk about his fielding for some reason. He is one of the best outfielders in the world, can change the game with the bat and has a reputation of breaking partnerships. He is aggressive and can pull the crowds in. What more do you want from a player? His price is justified considering he is the in form premier all rounder that performed well in the latest India series in India. Nuff said

 

[Hasan123]

It happens. Stuart Broad was hit 6,6,6,6,6,6 and he will end up with 500 Test wickets. Stokes is a special player, well ahead of other all-rounders in the game today. He is a better player than Flintoff already who is considered to be England's second best all-rounder after Botham. By the end of his career, Stokes will probably overtake Botham.

Wow over take Botham. Bold claim.

Actually reading your opnion on Stokes has just made me wondered something.

You don't rate Donald as an atg because of his choke in the 1999 world cup semi final . That is your opnion which I respect. Your willing to say Stokes can be potentially better than Botham. But if you remember the world t20 final where Stokes bowled that over to Braithwaite he literally choked and handed West Indies the game.

Yes Stokes can be a class player but how come Donald isn't an atg in your opnion because of one choke but Stokes can be even with a more epic choke than Donald?

Let's assume Stokes flops in other icc tournaments, will you still consider him atg when you don't see Donald as one?

 

[Hasan123]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], I rate Stokes very highly. This is something on my mind I wanted to ask you.

 

[Ab Fan]

Stokes and Butler are both overrated soft cricketers.

One has already cost his team Champions Trophy while the other has costed his team WT20 recently.

I havent seen Stokes performing under pressure with the bat ever.He has an unbearable attitude due to the potential he possesses with both bat and ball.

A good test player though.

 

[Ab Fan]

It happens. Stuart Broad was hit 6,6,6,6,6,6 and he will end up with 500 Test wickets. Stokes is a special player, well ahead of other all-rounders in the game today. He is a better player than Flintoff already who is considered to be England's second best all-rounder after Botham. By the end of his career, Stokes will probably overtake Botham.

Stokes would do good for himself if his stronger suit surpasses Botham's weaker suit let alone making any comparison between the two.

It would be an under-statement if I call your last line as over-statement because that is nothing less than blasphemy.

 

[Sarfarazian92]

The worst thing about buying Stokes was that Pune was handicapped in the auction after his purchase. They had no chance of winning bidding wars.

I felt pity for their muchon wala owner when he was bidding for some player, he had such a small amount of money left that he couldn't purchase any player that another team was also aiming for.

 

[Napa]

The worst thing about buying Stokes was that Pune was handicapped in the auction after his purchase. They had no chance of winning bidding wars.

I felt pity for their muchon wala owner when he was bidding for some player, he had such a small amount of money left that he couldn't purchase any player that another team was also aiming for.

After 14.5 Stokes, Pune paid 12.5 Dhoni, 9.5 Rahane, 7.5 Ashwin, 5.5 Smith, 4.8 Marsh and 4 Plessis. Seems like they still had plenty to spend after getting Stokes.

 

[KingKhanWC]

lol@Stokes overtaking Botham.

He is considered a very good all rounder because he can bat in all 3 formats and bowl in all 3 formats but isn't great in of the two disciplines. Of course he can have a good day with bat and ball, but so did Woakes against Pakistan. Probably the best fielder in the world though.

 

[Sarfarazian92]

After 14.5 Stokes, Pune paid 12.5 Dhoni, 9.5 Rahane, 7.5 Ashwin, 5.5 Smith, 4.8 Marsh and 4 Plessis. Seems like they still had plenty to spend after getting Stokes.

They didn't buy Dhoni, Rahane, Ashwin, Smith, Marsh, and Plessis in yesterday's auction, or did they?

 

[Adil_94]

Stokes will never overtake Botham because his bowling is pony.

 

[Napa]

They didn't buy Dhoni, Rahane, Ashwin, Smith, Marsh, and Plessis in yesterday's auction, or did they?

Those are the 2017 prices, not sure when they were bought.

 

[Sarfarazian92]

Those are the 2017 prices, not sure when they were bought.

You didn't watch the auction I think, which is why you didn't understand what I tried to say.

 

[Sub-Zero]

You didn't watch the auction I think, which is why you didn't understand what I tried to say.

even Indian fans are laughing at the selection of Stokes, their own coach Fleming did not want him, bidders were brainless

 

[Arsalan Pro]

They didn't buy Dhoni, Rahane, Ashwin, Smith, Marsh, and Plessis in yesterday's auction, or did they?

No they didn't, they are retained player's from last season.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Game changer for his team with the bat but game changer for the opposition team with the ball

 

[Arsalan Pro]

The worst thing about buying Stokes was that Pune was handicapped in the auction after his purchase. They had no chance of winning bidding wars.

I felt pity for their muchon wala owner when he was bidding for some player, he had such a small amount of money left that he couldn't purchase any player that another team was also aiming for.

Yup,you are right.They spent to much money on useless Stokes which actually hurt them as they were not able to buy good players by getting into bids.Let's see how much Stokes pay them back by performing well.

 

[Executioner]

I like ben stokes, very passionate, loves to play under pressure and is a good impact player.

Statistically, Ben stokes is a mediocre player. His bowling average is around 8-16 more than his batting average in all formats. Infact, he hasn't really done anything substantial in any department in any format

Compare that with Shakib. Shakib's stats is "MUCH" better than that of Ben stokes, infact, Shakib's batting average in all ODIs and Tests is about 8 more than his bowling average and 4 more in T20Is. Difference ofcourse is, Shakib is not an "impact" player. He is an impact player with bat in tests, and ball in LOIs in spin friendly conditions but so much elsewhere. He is a perfect support player, definitely the best in the world.

Now in the cricket world, we focus too much on "impact players" and not so much into the support players. Hence someone like Stokes get so much hype. And these players are highly marketable.

 

[Executioner]

TBH he isn't much of a bowler. I know stats don't tell the full picture but I usually see Stokes getting owned in LOIs. He lacks variations. He can get to reverse swing the ball in tests which is useful tho but against sides like Bangladesh who has a weak tail, and every BD fan knows how our tail struggled against stokes

 

[kingusama92]

Love the energy he brings to his team.

BUT, his bowling is just not up to par with how he's viewed. It needs work as he tends to lose the plot easily in all formats.

On the other hand, his batting is growing by the day. He's got that side of things in order as an all-rounder.

 

[R0H1T]

I like ben stokes, very passionate, loves to play under pressure and is a good impact player.

Statistically, Ben stokes is a mediocre player. His bowling average is around 8-16 more than his batting average in all formats. Infact, he hasn't really done anything substantial in any department in any format

Compare that with Shakib. Shakib's stats is "MUCH" better than that of Ben stokes, infact, Shakib's batting average in all ODIs and Tests is about 8 more than his bowling average and 4 more in T20Is. Difference ofcourse is, Shakib is not an "impact" player. He is an impact player with bat in tests, and ball in LOIs in spin friendly conditions but so much elsewhere. He is a perfect support player, definitely the best in the world.

Now in the cricket world, we focus too much on "impact players" and not so much into the support players. Hence someone like Stokes get so much hype. And these players are highly marketable.

It's more to do with the fact that Shakib bottles it under pressure, more often than not, unlike Stokes who's perceived to be thriving under pressure. Though I don't see him much better than Shakib under pressure, he has played some massive innings (like that 250 odd vs SA in SA) in pressure cooker situations but his bowling isn't always up to snuff.

 

[Usman]

Not sure I agree to be honest, about the energy he brings to the team. The second something doesn't go his way, he loses his temper, starts swearing on national television, punches lockers etc. Some will say they love that because it shows passion - sorry, that is a poor excuse to justify someone acting like a spoilt brat. If I acted like that in my workplace, I'd be in serious trouble. I don't see why Stokes should get a special exemption.

As a result of his behaviour, Stokes comes across as someone quite arrogant and someone who believes in the hype around him. The reality is he isn't very good with bat or ball - yes he sometimes will make rapid runs, but on most occasions he won't. Occasionally he'll bowl well, but on most occasions he'll bowl pies. He's not a terrible player by any stretch, but he's certainly not the player he himself believes he is.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

IPL owners are businessmen and they have brains thinking and planning for them.

Taking that in consideration, if they've decided to pay this much to Stokes, then he is worth it. I can see it.

 

[Usman]

Love the energy he brings to his team.

BUT, his bowling is just not up to par with how he's viewed. It needs work as he tends to lose the plot easily in all formats.

On the other hand, his batting is growing by the day. He's got that side of things in order as an all-rounder.

Not sure I agree to be honest, about the energy he brings to the team. The second something doesn't go his way, he loses his temper, starts swearing on national television, punches lockers etc. Some will say they love that because it shows passion - sorry, that is a poor excuse to justify someone acting like a spoilt brat. If I acted like that in my workplace, I'd be in serious trouble. I don't see why Stokes should get a special exemption.

As a result of his behaviour, Stokes comes across as someone quite arrogant and someone who believes in the hype around him. The reality is he isn't very good with bat or ball - yes he sometimes will make rapid runs, but on most occasions he won't. Occasionally he'll bowl well, but on most occasions he'll bowl pies. He's not a terrible player by any stretch, but he's certainly not the player he himself believes he is.

 

[King Kong]

I like ben stokes, very passionate, loves to play under pressure and is a good impact player.

Statistically, Ben stokes is a mediocre player. His bowling average is around 8-16 more than his batting average in all formats. Infact, he hasn't really done anything substantial in any department in any format

Compare that with Shakib. Shakib's stats is "MUCH" better than that of Ben stokes, infact, Shakib's batting average in all ODIs and Tests is about 8 more than his bowling average and 4 more in T20Is. Difference ofcourse is, Shakib is not an "impact" player. He is an impact player with bat in tests, and ball in LOIs in spin friendly conditions but so much elsewhere. He is a perfect support player, definitely the best in the world.

Now in the cricket world, we focus too much on "impact players" and not so much into the support players. Hence someone like Stokes get so much hype. And these players are highly marketable.

You just can't compare Stokes with players like Shakib. One day Mohammad Nabi might have better stats than Shakib. That doesn't mean he is comparable with genuine talents like Stokes, who is world class and a match winner unlike Shakib, Nabi who have played most of their matches against ZIM/WI and associate nations. I have never seen any viewers or any articles mentioning both Stokes and Shakib in the same line expect Bangla fans.

To counter this of my post, you have to bring up match-winning/impact performances of Shakib against major nations instead of coming up with typical stats of Shakib's average/Economy against the aforementioned.

 

[HitWicket]

Not sure I agree to be honest, about the energy he brings to the team. The second something doesn't go his way, he loses his temper, starts swearing on national television, punches lockers etc. Some will say they love that because it shows passion - sorry, that is a poor excuse to justify someone acting like a spoilt brat. If I acted like that in my workplace, I'd be in serious trouble. I don't see why Stokes should get a special exemption.

As a result of his behaviour, Stokes comes across as someone quite arrogant and someone who believes in the hype around him. The reality is he isn't very good with bat or ball - yes he sometimes will make rapid runs, but on most occasions he won't. Occasionally he'll bowl well, but on most occasions he'll bowl pies. He's not a terrible player by any stretch, but he's certainly not the player he himself believes he is.

Listen to him on interview and he doesn't come across as what you'd consider an arrogant cricketer.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You just can't compare Stokes with players like Shakib. One day Mohammad Nabi might have better stats than Shakib. That doesn't mean he is comparable with genuine talents like Stokes, who is world class and a match winner unlike Shakib, Nabi who have played most of their matches against ZIM/WI and associate nations. I have never seen any viewers or any articles mentioning both Stokes and Shakib in the same line expect Bangla fans.

To counter this of my post, you have to bring up match-winning/impact performances of Shakib against major nations instead of coming up with typical stats of Shakib's average/Economy against the aforementioned.

Perception and reality can be quite different.

Shakib is a PROVEN IPL performer.

He played a good role in KKR winning the title twice.

Stokes may have better talent which no one denies but let's stop with this whole Stokes has done so much more than Shakib.

I would pick Shakib over Stokes in my IPL team. Stokes may one day become incredibly great but today, he is neither a reliable bat or bowler in LOIs.

 

[King Kong]

Perception and reality can be quite different.

Shakib is a PROVEN IPL performer.

He played a good role in KKR winning the title twice.

Stokes may have better talent which no one denies but let's stop with this whole Stokes has done so much more than Shakib.

I would pick Shakib over Stokes in my IPL team. Stokes may one day become incredibly great but today, he is neither a reliable bat or bowler in LOIs.

I'd pick Shakib as well, but only if I never watched Cricket, came straight into the auction with no advisers and had to pick one only by seeing their "stats".

 

[Executioner]

You just can't compare Stokes with players like Shakib. One day Mohammad Nabi might have better stats than Shakib. That doesn't mean he is comparable with genuine talents like Stokes, who is world class and a match winner unlike Shakib, Nabi who have played most of their matches against ZIM/WI and associate nations. I have never seen any viewers or any articles mentioning both Stokes and Shakib in the same line expect Bangla fans.

To counter this of my post, you have to bring up match-winning/impact performances of Shakib against major nations instead of coming up with typical stats of Shakib's average/Economy against the aforementioned.

Shakib was the man of the series for BD against our whitewash of NZ in 2010, we didnt win too many but when we did shakib led from the front with both bat and ball. and yes I am talking about performance against top teams.

In tests
Shakib's average with bat against non minnow 41, bowling around 32. Shakib has a double century in NZ against NZ. Not a mean feat. He also averages less than 27 with ball in non asian countries like NZ, ENG, SA, WI, didn't play in Australia.

All that match winner nonsense, Shakib's batting average is 7 more than that of Stokes in tests and bowling average is 2.5 less. So it doesn't matter what experts say. Rankings will tell you Shakib is no. 1 allrounder in ODIs, no. 2 in T20Is, no. 2 in Tests. Probably will be no. 1 in T20Is soon.

Mind you, Bangladesh doesn't play too many matches these days against associates. And recently we have played top teams at home and beaten them often.

And like SIF said, Shakib was clinical in helping KKR win 2 IPL trophies, he was always their strike bowler apart from Narine and played cameos with the bat.

Stokes might be a better batsman than Shakib but as an allrounder Stokes is not as good. And if you think that Stoke is a genuine talent, then what if I told you Shakib started playing since the age of 17/18 and by the age of 21 he was the no.1 ranked allrounder in ODIs. 2 years later, he was the no. 1 allrounder in all formats combined.

The reason why Stokes gets that extra edge is because he is an aggressive player and he plays for England side.

And btw, besides the talk of all this pundits, every commentator in every BD match talks about how big a player Shakib is, and that he is arguably the best allrounder in the world. Most Indian, Pakistani comms would agree. I don't really care about comments from England, Aus comms who don't bother to watch our cricket.

 

[Hawkeye]

All-rounders are worth more in such leagues. Stokes can win the game with both bat and ball unlike Rabada.

Yes, only if he had the quality to do so.

He'll lose his team the matches with both bat and ball.

 

[Executioner]

[MENTION=140475]King Kong[/MENTION]

My countrymen [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] and [MENTION=137485]Dios[/MENTION] [MENTION=136446]Mainul[/MENTION] can provide necessary stats. I am not really good with statistics or searching for info on CI.

 

[Abdullah]

It would atleast make some sense if Pune atleast had a solid team and then splurged on Stokes for his potential.

Go to cricinfo and look at the Pune team.

No quality pacer....dodgy bats....on top of that Stokes who cannot control the run flow.

Icing on top is that we have legunds like Dinda and Dan Christian in our squad.

Rising Loser Supergiants indeed.

bowling will be heavily reliant on ashwin and zampa so stokes will need to step up.
fast bowling is bare.
but i like the batting line up

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

bowling will be heavily reliant on ashwin and zampa so stokes will need to step up.
fast bowling is bare.
but i like the batting line up

Ashwin hasn't performed well in IPL for years.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I'd pick Shakib as well, but only if I never watched Cricket, came straight into the auction with no advisers and had to pick one only by seeing their "stats".

Spicy...haha.

Stats is not a bad word. Just need to use them properly and know when not to give too much importance to it.

 

[Pollack]

Jason Roy is the most over rated player currently. He is a hack whose bubble is soon going to burst.

 

[King Kong]

Shakib was the man of the series for BD against our whitewash of NZ in 2010, we didnt win too many but when we did shakib led from the front with both bat and ball. and yes I am talking about performance against top teams.

In tests
Shakib's average with bat against non minnow 41, bowling around 32. Shakib has a double century in NZ against NZ. Not a mean feat. He also averages less than 27 with ball in non asian countries like NZ, ENG, SA, WI, didn't play in Australia.

All that match winner nonsense, Shakib's batting average is 7 more than that of Stokes in tests and bowling average is 2.5 less. So it doesn't matter what experts say. Rankings will tell you Shakib is no. 1 allrounder in ODIs, no. 2 in T20Is, no. 2 in Tests. Probably will be no. 1 in T20Is soon.

Mind you, Bangladesh doesn't play too many matches these days against associates. And recently we have played top teams at home and beaten them often.

And like SIF said, Shakib was clinical in helping KKR win 2 IPL trophies, he was always their strike bowler apart from Narine and played cameos with the bat.

Stokes might be a better batsman than Shakib but as an allrounder Stokes is not as good. And if you think that Stoke is a genuine talent, then what if I told you Shakib started playing since the age of 17/18 and by the age of 21 he was the no.1 ranked allrounder in ODIs. 2 years later, he was the no. 1 allrounder in all formats combined.

The reason why Stokes gets that extra edge is because he is an aggressive player and he plays for England side.

And btw, besides the talk of all this pundits, every commentator in every BD match talks about how big a player Shakib is, and that he is arguably the best allrounder in the world. Most Indian, Pakistani comms would agree. I don't really care about comments from England, Aus comms who don't bother to watch our cricket.

Hence proved, uh?

Seriously, I asked a simple question of Shakib's good knocks away from home throughout his career? And you wasted your time posting this irrelevant stuff.

Stokes won a series against your team in your home, where you people boast beating other teams. Did well against India, Australia, South Africa. Mind you, all those countries were his very first tours. That's why he is rated highly and rightly so.

 

[King Kong]

Spicy...haha.

Stats is not a bad word. Just need to use them properly and know when not to give too much importance to it.

Right. You yourself answered your question of who the better player of the two is. Stats don't tell the whole picture. That's why Stokes is way ahead of Shakib.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Right. You yourself answered your question of who the better player of the two is. Stats don't tell the whole picture. That's why Stokes is way ahead of Shakib.

Nah....you got me wrong bud.

You honestly thought I wouldn't think of that when I typed out my reply?

Here's a bit of context since you don't like stats too much:

An upcoming international player should not be judged solely by his international stats cos he may take a while to find his groove and become consistent.

If the player has good domestic stats, it proves that he is consistent and just needs some time to do the same in the international circuit.

If however the same player has equally bad domestic stats, then that shows a TREND of how the player performs consistency wise.

Now could he buck the trend and correct his records in the international circuit?

Sure he can. For that he has to transform and go to the next level. It takes time to get there. Usually for majority of cricketers that doesn't happen but for some it does. But the likelihood of someone transforming all of a sudden with no prior indication is very low which is why Stokes's price for IPL is high.

I never got into the whole Stokes vs Shakib AR overall comparison but my point was more geared towards T20 and also IPL.

As for T20s, here's what happened when Stokes and Shakib played them in India:

Stokes played 6 games taking 4 wickets averaging 44 with a economy of 9.58.
Shakib layed 6 games taking 10 wickets averaging 16 with an economy of 7.21.

Even amongst pacers, Stokes numbers are right down below. Rabada also sucked in that tourney economy wise but he picked more wickets and most importantly, his domestic and T20I stats show that he is a good wicket taker with okayish economy for a pacer.

This is called using stats the right way and that's what I meant by saying stats is not a bad word.

Now I am not saying Stokes will flop for sure but if trends are anything to go by, he ain't gonna magically become a good averaging low economy bowler in IPL. He really has to transform to do that and with no indicators as of now, its just unlikely.

Possible but unlikely.

 

[bleaf27]

I think Stoke's is a decent player , all the fuss about him is the IPL teams overpaying for him , if Stokes had been picked up for let's say 2-3 crores - people would consider that a steal , but because a bidding war ensued and he was picked for 14 crores , everone is losing their mind.
He is a good player , is he worth 14 crore comparatively ? No
He does bring a lot to a side though - decent fielder and a genuine allrounder - poor man's Kluesner/Symonds.

 

[Executioner]

Hence proved, uh?

Seriously, I asked a simple question of Shakib's good knocks away from home throughout his career? And you wasted your time posting this irrelevant stuff.

Stokes won a series against your team in your home, where you people boast beating other teams. Did well against India, Australia, South Africa. Mind you, all those countries were his very first tours. That's why he is rated highly and rightly so.

Since we are talking about T20s as well as performance in CRUNCH GAMES here here are some stats for you. So Stokes has played only one world T20. So its only fair to talk about WT20 performances?

Now Shakib's stats, and he has played 2 WT20s as a teenager, and a total of 25 matches:
Batting average: 28.35, Strike Rate: 128
Bowling average: 19.54 Economy rate: 6.64

Now you don't need any other context, or information to tell you that a batsman with 28 average and decent SR and bowling average of below 20 and ER below 6.75 is quality. So he has such stats despite playing from such a young age even when he wasn't fully fledged player. These days a batsman with 28 average can easily walk into a side as a batsman alone and any bowler with bowling average of 19.54 with an ER below 6.75? Now that is gold

Stokes performance in the only WT20 he has played?
Batting average: 14, SR: 170
Bowling average: 44.75, ER: 9.5

This was my point about domination in big matches + performances in T20s

I can go on and bring up performances in tests, ODIs but I am not good with stats and even this post alone took me 12 minutes to write but I felt it was worth it to enlighten my friend.

 

[King Kong]

Nah....you got me wrong bud.

You honestly thought I wouldn't think of that when I typed out my reply?

Here's a bit of context since you don't like stats too much:

An upcoming international player should not be judged solely by his international stats cos he may take a while to find his groove and become consistent.

If the player has good domestic stats, it proves that he is consistent and just needs some time to do the same in the international circuit.

If however the same player has equally bad domestic stats, then that shows a TREND of how the player performs consistency wise.

Now could he buck the trend and correct his records in the international circuit?

Sure he can. For that he has to transform and go to the next level. It takes time to get there. Usually for majority of cricketers that doesn't happen but for some it does. But the likelihood of someone transforming all of a sudden with no prior indication is very low which is why Stokes's price for IPL is high.

I never got into the whole Stokes vs Shakib AR overall comparison but my point was more geared towards T20 and also IPL.

As for T20s, here's what happened when Stokes and Shakib played them in India:

Stokes played 6 games taking 4 wickets averaging 44 with a economy of 9.58.
Shakib layed 6 games taking 10 wickets averaging 16 with an economy of 7.21.

Even amongst pacers, Stokes numbers are right down below. Rabada also sucked in that tourney economy wise but he picked more wickets and most importantly, his domestic and T20I stats show that he is a good wicket taker with okayish economy for a pacer.

This is called using stats the right way and that's what I meant by saying stats is not a bad word.

Now I am not saying Stokes will flop for sure but if trends are anything to go by, he ain't gonna magically become a good averaging low economy bowler in IPL. He really has to transform to do that and with no indicators as of now, its just unlikely.

Possible but unlikely.

1. You are basing your argument using only T20 stats without giving the weight to his ODI stats. When a player coming down the order is scoring runs at a quick rate and is consistently able to clear the boundary whenever willing to do in ODIs, he is bound to replicate the same in the shortest format as well. That's why I feel Stokes is much better than what his T20 stats indicate as he has already shown his potential with the bat in ODIs.

2. I'd give more weight to batting in T20s when is comes to rating allrounders while in tests it's complete opposite. Stokes stronger suit is Batting whereas Shakib's is bowling in T20s. Stokes, on most days, can win you more watches with his batting than what Shakib can do with is bowling. Stokes has that intimidation factor Shakib can never get. Let Stokes bowl all his overs between 6-15 and analyse his economy rate. He was good in India in the T20 series with ball (&bat) because he was used in the middle overs. It was poor on the part of Morgan to use him an allrounder at the critical juncture of a match.. I don't fault him for not being great at death.

3. As I already posted, Stokes has done well in India, South Africa, Bangladesh, Australia on his very first tours and what's astonishing is he hasn't even entered his peak yet. I strongly believe he is entering his peak with this IPL and will leave everyone in the dust.

 

[Executioner]

However it would be unfair for Stokes so lets use stats for Shakib in his first WT20 appearance which, was in SA and note that all the matches were against top sides - SA, WI, NZ, Aus, Pak

5 matches
Batting average: 13.4, SR: 120
Bowling average: 19.33, ER: 6.82

As you can see not great batting stats, but his bowling was really exceptional. Infact, Shakib as a bowler alone was world class in LOIs. So now an 18 year old Shakib had better stats in his first WT20 opposed to 25 year old Stokes in his first WT20.

 

[Hawkeye]

Didn't know we'd have defenders of the most ridiculous deal ever made in the history of cricket.

That's like buying Sohail Khan for 2mn USD. And Sohail is a 5x better bowler, good enough batsman!
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

 

[HitWicket]

Jason Roy is the most over rated player currently. He is a hack whose bubble is soon going to burst.

Roy has been doing pretty well in the county championship for a hack.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Here are Ben "all-rounder" Stokes averages in his recent tour of India:

Tests: 45 at 80 SR
ODIs: 43 at 7.41 economy
T20s: 45 at 8.18 economy

In his last 5 ODI series, his stats are:

43 @ 5.86 vs Australia
55 @5.83 vs SA
76 @4.75 vs Pakistan
41 @5.18 vs Bangladesh
43 @7.41 vs India

This guy is as much a bowler as Anwar Ali.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Hence proved, uh?

Seriously, I asked a simple question of Shakib's good knocks away from home throughout his career? And you wasted your time posting this irrelevant stuff.

Stokes won a series against your team in your home, where you people boast beating other teams. Did well against India, Australia, South Africa. Mind you, all those countries were his very first tours. That's why he is rated highly and rightly so.

Here is one that I remember against Pakistan in 2012 WT20 in SL, smashed 84 in 54 balls and then bowled his 4 overs for just 23 runs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-world-twenty20-2012/engine/current/match/533283.html

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

1. You are basing your argument using only T20 stats without giving the weight to his ODI stats. When a player coming down the order is scoring runs at a quick rate and is consistently able to clear the boundary whenever willing to do in ODIs, he is bound to replicate the same in the shortest format as well. That's why I feel Stokes is much better than what his T20 stats indicate as he has already shown his potential with the bat in ODIs.

2. I'd give more weight to batting in T20s when is comes to rating allrounders while in tests it's complete opposite. Stokes stronger suit is Batting whereas Shakib's is bowling in T20s. Stokes, on most days, can win you more watches with his batting than what Shakib can do with is bowling. Stokes has that intimidation factor Shakib can never get. Let Stokes bowl all his overs between 6-15 and analyse his economy rate. He was good in India in the T20 series with ball (&bat) because he was used in the middle overs. It was poor on the part of Morgan to use him an allrounder at the critical juncture of a match.. I don't fault him for not being great at death.

3. As I already posted, Stokes has done well in India, South Africa, Bangladesh, Australia on his very first tours and what's astonishing is he hasn't even entered his peak yet. I strongly believe he is entering his peak with this IPL and will leave everyone in the dust.

Yes...Stokes was bought for his batting mainly. He has shown very good potential there. Hard hitters are always valuable.

But if we are talking about consistency and gonna use ODIs, then here's how it works out:

In 50 ODI games he averages 29 at 98 SR.
In 115 List A games he averages 33 at 99 SR.

In T20s too, in domestics, he played 77 games and averages 22.

As for performance in India, SA, Aus....dig deep and see...

In Aus, he scored one incredible 120 in Perth. Nothing else barring that apart from a 47 in Sydney first innings flatty.
In India, he got some of the flattest tracks and managed one 100 in Rajkot super flat track (after being dropped twice) and a good 70 in Vizag.
In SA, he scored a 258 on a flatty draw and one 50 and nothing else.
In Bangladesh, he was damn good. I wouldn't dismiss that achievement as minnow bashing cos the conditions were really hard.

Now these aren't bad returns at all.....but the issue is he is a batsman first.

As a bowler, his numbers are bad but he is a damn good bowler in his zone which he showed in Bangladesh and India.

Stokes is a guy with X factor but he does have a lot to sort out consistency wise in every format. Doing well in one game and going missing in several is his problem.

Also his batting is a bit too risk prone in bowling friendly pitches. May not be that big a deal in modern LOIs.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I mean damn good bowler in zone in tests.

 

[Executioner]

Stokes is a guy with X factor but he does have a lot to sort out consistency wise in every format. Doing well in one game and going missing in several is his problem.

Also his batting is a bit too risk prone in bowling friendly pitches. May not be that big a deal in modern LOIs.

That is the issue with Stokes and which is why I feel he is not as good as people say. Stokes performs here and there. But he is lacking in consistency. World class players need perform more often than not.

He is a much improved player but he needs to maintain that consistency

 

[HitWicket]

Yes...Stokes was bought for his batting mainly. He has shown very good potential there. Hard hitters are always valuable.

But if we are talking about consistency and gonna use ODIs, then here's how it works out:

In 50 ODI games he averages 29 at 98 SR.
In 115 List A games he averages 33 at 99 SR.

As for performance in India, SA, Aus....dig deep and see...

In Aus, he scored one incredible 120 in Perth. Nothing else barring that apart from a 47 in Sydney first innings flatty.

Given he only played 2 those games in Australia I think you're being a bit harsh there. A wicket on which all 40 wickets fell in just over 200 overs being flat would be surprising as well.

On another note I thought it'd only be fair that I point out the rapid rise of Stokes ODI batting in his 50 games so far :

First 25 games : Averages 15.36 @ 75.45
Last 25 games : Averages 43.30 @ 109.11

And also slightly lower sample but last 15 games : Averages 50.27 @ 108.85

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Given he only played 2 those games in Australia I think you're being a bit harsh there. A wicket on which all 40 wickets fell in just over 200 overs being flat would be surprising as well.

On another note I thought it'd only be fair that I point out the rapid rise of Stokes ODI batting in his 50 games so far :

First 25 games : Averages 15.36 @ 75.45
Last 25 games : Averages 43.30 @ 109.11

And also slightly lower sample but last 15 games : Averages 50.27 @ 108.85

1. Was talking about tests in those countries cos I believe King Kong was referring to tests there.

2. Slight correction with the way your ODI numbers are presented.

Stokes has played 50 ODIs.

Uptil almost 40 ODIs, his average was 21 with 91 SR.

Last 10 ODIs (against Pak, India and Bangladesh) he has done well so the upward curve.

Its a good sign but not a conclusive sign plus we are talking about IPL.

In T20 series post the upward curve, his returns in World T20 and even in India T20 series haven't been all that good.

3. Stokes is a good player man but right now, his bowling numbers are pretty bad in LOI and batting hasn't lit up T20s yet.

 

[Mamoon]

Wow over take Botham. Bold claim.

Actually reading your opnion on Stokes has just made me wondered something.

You don't rate Donald as an atg because of his choke in the 1999 world cup semi final . That is your opnion which I respect. Your willing to say Stokes can be potentially better than Botham. But if you remember the world t20 final where Stokes bowled that over to Braithwaite he literally choked and handed West Indies the game.

Yes Stokes can be a class player but how come Donald isn't an atg in your opnion because of one choke but Stokes can be even with a more epic choke than Donald?

Let's assume Stokes flops in other icc tournaments, will you still consider him atg when you don't see Donald as one?

I will explain the context of my statement to avoid misinterpretation. I believe you are referring to a thread few months back which posed the question that why Donald is underrated compared to some of the other legendary bowlers.

There is no doubt that Donald is one of the greatest bowlers ever. I'd say he is better than Steyn, but it is natural for him to be underrated by many people because he holds the distinction of pulling off the biggest individual choke in cricketing history. Well at least in the era of video footage.

The fact that he was not able to win SA a World Cup and in fact, prevented them from making it to the final is a major reason why he is less popular and influential than bowlers like Wasim and McGrath. Wasim's stock as a cricketer would no doubt have been lower had he not produced a match-winning performance in the 1992 World Cup final. In fact, the consecutive deliveries to Lamb and Lewis are the two most famous deliveries he has ever bowled.

Similarly, Imran Khan is one of the greatest Test all-rounders of all time and he was already a legend before the 1992 World Cup, but today, the World Cup win is considered to be his biggest achievement, especially among the casual fans and they are the ones who make up the majority and determine if a certain player is underrated or overrated. Ask any random fan in Pakistan and he won't even know that Imran pushed the ATG WI team in Test cricket like no other captain, and that is because World Cups are much more iconic and are etched in our memories forever.

Stokes no doubt choked in the WT20 final last year and prevented England from becoming the first team to win two WT20s, and if he does not perform for England in World Cups in the future, it will be a big stain on his career and will dent his popularity. On the other hand, if he playing a starring role for England and wins them a World Cup, it can prove to be the difference between him ending up as a great player or a legend.

Same goes for the likes of Root, Buttler etc. who can etch their names in history by helping England win the World Cup in 2 years time on home soil.

As far as the comparison with Botham is concerned, I believe he has the potential. He is one of the most talented players I've seen in a long time. Yes he is mediocre with the ball at the moment, but he has considerable ability. He is faster than Botham ever was, and he looks dangerous when he reverses the ball. Botham however, swung the ball a lot in his peak but Stokes is more of a hit-the-deck type bowler. Obviously in terms of performance, he has long, long way to go, but yes I do think he has the ability to overtake Botham.

 

[Mamoon]

Didn't know we'd have defenders of the most ridiculous deal ever made in the history of cricket.

That's like buying Sohail Khan for 2mn USD. And Sohail is a 5x better bowler, good enough batsman!

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

Yes, both Anwar Ali and Sohail are better all-rounders than Stokes. He is easily the worst all-rounder of this era, a shame that he is playing Test cricket for England and is also their vice-captain.

England with they had Anwar Ali or Sohail Khan, they would have honoured them with the Order of the British Empire by now, and would be known as Sir Anwar Ali and Sir Sohail Khan.

Meanwhile, if Stokes was in Pakistan, he would not even make the 15 man squad given how blessed we are when it comes to all-rounders.