What's new

[VIDEOS] Ben Stokes - England’s best ever all-rounder? / England’s Test captain

In ODI - yes, Botham wasn't the great ODI player, which is surprising because the guy had unreal potential to be among the greatest ODI players ever. I can explain the reason - Botham, Imran, Gavaskar, Border, Marshall ... were cricketers of 1970s-80s era, a time when top cricketers didn't put much value to ODI cricket; WC may be, but not random series. Just like today, top players hardly bother for T20s, it was exactly the same case 40-50 years back. I believe, 1990s was the start of the shift, when ODI was considered at per or close to Test cricket in terms of status, hence we have top players focusing in ODIs as well from 90s.

As a Test batsman, close but not conclusive. What Stokes did at Leeds was equally matched by Botham 38 years back (And guy took a 6for in first innings of that game as well). Botham on his day was most destructive - simple stats crunching won't compare the impact because of different era, but at his prime, he was as explosive as probably like Viv. Botham had 14 Test hundreds in 102 Tests as well and his average is lower than his batting capability because like Viv, guy hardly bothered for stats - got out easily many times when he could have stayed Not Out and take his average close to 40, even over.

As an all-rounder - it's not even a contest. In his first 50-60 Tests, Ian Botham was ultimate match winner the game has ever seen, with bat, ball or even at 2nd slip. Botham played in an era when cricket saw at least 6 ATG fast bowling all-rounders - the big 4 & Proctor, Stevenson, we can add Marshall as well and Gilmore wasted his career; hence his greatness is a bit diluted (for all 8 actually). People in that time, had an expectation that all-rounder means you'll take the new ball (& average around 30, or lower), you'll bat at 5/6 and often save your team in crisis (or blast out iof it), you can field brilliantly at slips or out-field and you'll lead you side as well... may be to WC wins or in away Test series wins, leading from the front.

Shakib is a different type player, hence that comparison is never logical. Apart from that, Stokes has Holder and Vernon Phi, or may be Woakes, Collin de G'homme, Mitch Marsh, Hardik Pandeya ..... Faheem Ashraf..............................

Fast bowling all-rounder is the rarest breed of cricket because it takes multiple times of hard-work, skills and passion as well - this can only be developed through hard fought FC cricket, something gradually diminishing, hence Stokes might be last of this rare bread; but he is no where near what those 4 were as all-rounder.
 
tyron_woodley said:
could we say he is the best batting all rounder after kalis and sobers?

best bowling all rounder would be imran khan

best all rounder overall would be kalis.

kalis and sobers are conplete all rounders.

like botham vs stokes is hard to compare.
stokes is a better batsman. botham is a better bowler. stokes takes crucial wickets though. botham has some good batting performances but not as many match winning ones like stokes.
Click to expand...

Botham hit fourteen test centuries. Ten of those were in matches England won, three in draws, one in a loss.

Botham was as good as Stokes against pace and better against spin - he averaged 70 against India.

The trouble was that he went on too long and messed up his average.
 
Botham's jubilee Test at Mumbai is one of the greatest all rounder performance of all time. A century and 13 wickets. If i am right Botham was first change bowler in the 70s. Then started opening the bowling in the 80s. He could purely play as a batsman or bowler. There is no way in hell Stokes will even be in the side if he has no batting skills.
 
MMHS said:
In ODI - yes, Botham wasn't the great ODI player, which is surprising because the guy had unreal potential to be among the greatest ODI players ever. I can explain the reason - Botham, Imran, Gavaskar, Border, Marshall ... were cricketers of 1970s-80s era, a time when top cricketers didn't put much value to ODI cricket; WC may be, but not random series. Just like today, top players hardly bother for T20s, it was exactly the same case 40-50 years back. I believe, 1990s was the start of the shift, when ODI was considered at per or close to Test cricket in terms of status, hence we have top players focusing in ODIs as well from 90s.

As a Test batsman, close but not conclusive. What Stokes did at Leeds was equally matched by Botham 38 years back (And guy took a 6for in first innings of that game as well). Botham on his day was most destructive - simple stats crunching won't compare the impact because of different era, but at his prime, he was as explosive as probably like Viv. Botham had 14 Test hundreds in 102 Tests as well and his average is lower than his batting capability because like Viv, guy hardly bothered for stats - got out easily many times when he could have stayed Not Out and take his average close to 40, even over.

As an all-rounder - it's not even a contest. In his first 50-60 Tests, Ian Botham was ultimate match winner the game has ever seen, with bat, ball or even at 2nd slip. Botham played in an era when cricket saw at least 6 ATG fast bowling all-rounders - the big 4 & Proctor, Stevenson, we can add Marshall as well and Gilmore wasted his career; hence his greatness is a bit diluted (for all 8 actually). People in that time, had an expectation that all-rounder means you'll take the new ball (& average around 30, or lower), you'll bat at 5/6 and often save your team in crisis (or blast out iof it), you can field brilliantly at slips or out-field and you'll lead you side as well... may be to WC wins or in away Test series wins, leading from the front.

Shakib is a different type player, hence that comparison is never logical. Apart from that, Stokes has Holder and Vernon Phi, or may be Woakes, Collin de G'homme, Mitch Marsh, Hardik Pandeya ..... Faheem Ashraf..............................

Fast bowling all-rounder is the rarest breed of cricket because it takes multiple times of hard-work, skills and passion as well - this can only be developed through hard fought FC cricket, something gradually diminishing, hence Stokes might be last of this rare bread; but he is no where near what those 4 were as all-rounder.
Click to expand...

I will never forget the sight of Hadlee, armed with the second new ball, with everyone back on the rope as Botham smashed him to the four winds.
 
Botham's first half was simply unreal. In his first 51 test matches he had more centuries than Dravid and more wickets than wasim akram.
 
0TU3x3W.png
 
Don't see why he can't finish his career better than Botham. He still has a few years left. Think people are scared to say he is better or could be better due to overeating previous generations.
 
Hasan123 said:
Don't see why he can't finish his career better than Botham. He still has a few years left. Think people are scared to say he is better or could be better due to overeating previous generations.
Click to expand...

Because he would have to get 14 test hundreds- which he is capable of - and 27 five wicket hauls instead of the four he has currently. Stokes will never get 373 rest wickets. He will do well to pass 200 unless his back improves.
 
Botham is comfortably better , in his first 50 test matches he like the best cricketer ever born in the history of cricket.

Botham had 10 hundreds and 19 5 fers after 50 marches , unbelievable.
 
Stokes is the player whoose stats dont tell how impactful of a player he really is.

Stokes can bat and bowl in all conditions and in every situation of the game.

Just looking at his stats will show him to be just an avg player
 
JibranAnsari said:
Botham is comfortably better , in his first 50 test matches he like the best cricketer ever born in the history of cricket.

Botham had 10 hundreds and 19 5 fers after 50 marches , unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Yes, also imran in his last 50 tests he averaged 50 with the bat and under 19 with the ball, them guys were unreal, as for stokes I'm a Hugh fan but hes definitely not in botham imran sobers class
 
Robert said:
Because he would have to get 14 test hundreds- which he is capable of - and 27 five wicket hauls instead of the four he has currently. Stokes will never get 373 rest wickets. He will do well to pass 200 unless his back improves.
Click to expand...

Correct, stats are not deliberately built up to be excellent or underachieving, it's consistancy which enables either
 
Manunited18 said:
Yes, also imran in his last 50 tests he averaged 50 with the bat and under 19 with the ball, them guys were unreal, as for stokes I'm a Hugh fan but hes definitely not in botham imran sobers class
Click to expand...

Ah, there is an asterisk with Imran’s batting because he wasn’t scoring any more runs than Stokes is now, but he had a very high proportion of not outs. Stokes already has more centuries and fifties than Imran.

No disagreement with Imran’s bowling, the guy was superb. Stokes will never achieve those heights or even those of Botham and Kapil.
 
Imran as bowler alone was in the top 5 of all times. His last three years with the ball were as a medium Pacer and wasn't the same but still managed to keep a great average.
 
JibranAnsari said:
Imran as bowler alone was in the top 5 of all times. His last three years with the ball were as a medium Pacer and wasn't the same but still managed to keep a great average.
Click to expand...

He was very clever to bowl behind W&W, come on and pinch a wicket against a new batter, then duck out of the firing line for a bit. On the other hand, his batting improved a lot. Quite like Stokes now.

He was smart to use himself in ways to maximise his impact at different stages of his career.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Botham hit fourteen test centuries. Ten of those were in matches England won, three in draws, one in a loss.

Botham was as good as Stokes against pace and better against spin - he averaged 70 against India.

The trouble was that he went on too long and messed up his average.
Click to expand...

fair enough but stoke's average doesn't do him justice. We all saw it live on TV. He has this habit of taking crucial.wickets when England need him most. Not to mention he turns it up in batting too with brilliantly measured power hitting displays due to his incredibly fast hand speed and hand eye coordination.

Botham is great. So is stokes. Stokes still has time. He is only? 31 or 32. another solid 3 years left. Plus stokes is a physical specimen. He is tough and extremely fit. I know who I would take between the two and it's not botham.
 
tyron_woodley said:
fair enough but stoke's average doesn't do him justice. We all saw it live on TV. He has this habit of taking crucial.wickets when England need him most. Not to mention he turns it up in batting too with brilliantly measured power hitting displays due to his incredibly fast hand speed and hand eye coordination.

Botham is great. So is stokes. Stokes still has time. He is only? 31 or 32. another solid 3 years left. Plus stokes is a physical specimen. He is tough and extremely fit. I know who I would take between the two and it's not botham.
Click to expand...

Stokes is 28. He could pass Botham's fourteen centuries and 120 catches (Stokes has eight and 68 respectively), but he will struggle to get to 200 test wickets let alone 373.

Yes he has a habit of scoring runs and taking wickets when England need them, but he also has a habit of not doing that.

I would always take Botham because he was good enough to get into the side for his batting alone or his bowling alone, at least for his first sixty tests - after that injuries wore his bowling down. Stokes would not get in for his bowling. Botham has 27 fivefers in tests and four tenfers. He was basically Stokes with the bat and in the slips, plus Anderson with the ball.
 
A couple of years back in PP, Ben Stokes was quite famous for not some but a lot of wrong things. I remember I myself said, "Stokes legacy will always be remembered as one who got smashed for four sixes by Braithwaite and ended up losing a WT20 for his team unless he wins his team a World Cup again."

And there wasn't a better answer that I or anyone could have got. He has my respect and hence I will rate him as the greatest England cricketer I have seen in my lifetime and that puts him ahead of names like Pietersen, Anderson, Gooch, Cook, Swann and Stewart.

Surely an ATG because he led his team as their main man all through the WC and in the finals and has been a brilliant match winner in tests as well.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Because he would have to get 14 test hundreds- which he is capable of - and 27 five wicket hauls instead of the four he has currently. Stokes will never get 373 rest wickets. He will do well to pass 200 unless his back improves.
Click to expand...

Stokes can't be judged on stats alone. When he performs it has a big say on the game. Just looking at stats alone is lazy.
 
Robert said:
Stokes is 28. He could pass Botham's fourteen centuries and 120 catches (Stokes has eight and 68 respectively), but he will struggle to get to 200 test wickets let alone 373.

Yes he has a habit of scoring runs and taking wickets when England need them, but he also has a habit of not doing that.

I would always take Botham because he was good enough to get into the side for his batting alone or his bowling alone, at least for his first sixty tests - after that injuries wore his bowling down. Stokes would not get in for his bowling. Botham has 27 fivefers in tests and four tenfers. He was basically Stokes with the bat and in the slips, plus Anderson with the ball.
Click to expand...

Stokes has won England a World Cup being their standout performer and being their main man in the finals. That counts for something as well.
 
Ab Fan said:
Stokes has won England a World Cup being their standout performer and being their main man in the finals. That counts for something as well.
Click to expand...

Root was the standout batter in the WC, while Archer and Wood were the standout bowlers.
 
Robert said:
Root was the standout batter in the WC, while Archer and Wood were the standout bowlers.
Click to expand...

You are an experienced poster with immense cricketing knowledge. That's not how one sum up things.

Anyone who watched the WC knows that Stokes was always the main man for England in the World Cup. The knock he played in finals was the one to remember for ages and he had a total of 5 scores of 80+, all of them coming up vs strong teams.

England cricket nation will always remember this World Cup win for years and their best player was Ben Stokes, which is why stats are literally the last thing you would mention when talking about players like Stokes.
 
Ab Fan said:
You are an experienced poster with immense cricketing knowledge. That's not how one sum up things.

Anyone who watched the WC knows that Stokes was always the main man for England in the World Cup. The knock he played in finals was the one to remember for ages and he had a total of 5 scores of 80+, all of them coming up vs strong teams.

England cricket nation will always remember this World Cup win for years and their best player was Ben Stokes, which is why stats are literally the last thing you would mention when talking about players like Stokes.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

My point is that without Root, England would not have got into the final. Stokes rises to occasions but Root made the occasion possible, if that makes sense.

Stats are not the end of understanding, they are the beginning and context is important. One develops understanding of context through experience. But don’t try it without the stats!
 
Robert said:
Thanks.

My point is that without Root, England would not have got into the final. Stokes rises to occasions but Root made the occasion possible, if that makes sense.

Stats are not the end of understanding, they are the beginning and context is important. One develops understanding of context through experience. But don’t try it without the stats!
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, it's Stokes who will rightfully get all the glory and credit.

Without him, England and Root's 2019 WC would have been forgotten.
 
Aman said:
Doesn't matter, it's Stokes who will rightfully get all the glory and credit.

Without him, England and Root's 2019 WC would have been forgotten.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter and rightful only to casual onlookers. The ECB and the England team know what Root (and Morgan, Roy, Bairstow, Archer, Plunkett, Wood and Rashid) did on the way. For Woakes and Plunkett knocking the guts out of NZ in the final. And Archer bowled that fateful over.
 
Robert said:
Thanks.

My point is that without Root, England would not have got into the final. Stokes rises to occasions but Root made the occasion possible, if that makes sense.

Stats are not the end of understanding, they are the beginning and context is important. One develops understanding of context through experience. But don’t try it without the stats!
Click to expand...

You made a good point about Root but Root wasn't really the standout batter everytime before the World Cup final. He didn't dominated the WC. What Sharma, Warner and Al-Hasan did is what you call dominating the World Cup.

Root got more runs than others from his team but <B>his average and strike rate</B> both remains lesser to Stokes and Roy and strike rate to Bairstow.

So, overall as a batter, Stokes still stands ahead of Root(higher avg, higher SR and much bigger impact) and then he got 7 wickets at bowling avg of 35 and econ rate less than 5 as well. You see, even though he didnt had any major impact with ball but if you look in a statistical way, I still proved that Stokes was more valuable to England than Root or Archer.

Hence, if you have to describe it as one guy who really owned the WC'19 for England, then you have your answer.
 
Ab Fan said:
You made a good point about Root but Root wasn't really the standout batter everytime before the World Cup final. He didn't dominated the WC. What Sharma, Warner and Al-Hasan did is what you call dominating the World Cup.

Root got more runs than others from his team but <B>his average and strike rate</B> both remains lesser to Stokes and Roy and strike rate to Bairstow.

So, overall as a batter, Stokes still stands ahead of Root(higher avg, higher SR and much bigger impact) and then he got 7 wickets at bowling avg of 35 and econ rate less than 5 as well. You see, even though he didnt had any major impact with ball but if you look in a statistical way, I still proved that Stokes was more valuable to England than Root or Archer.

Hence, if you have to describe it as one guy who really owned the WC'19 for England, then you have your answer.
Click to expand...

I’m not seeing that. Root scored two centuries. ODI cricket has phases, the fielding restrictions and power plays. His role was to pile up runs at the top of the order, build a platform for Stokes and Buttler to attack from. He did this very well, scoring at very close to Bairstow / Stokes speed, taking most of the pressure off them so the hitters could open their shoulders in the last ten overs.

Stokes got England to the line in the final, but without Buttler he wouldn’t have got close. But everyone remembers him and not Buttler because of that fluke deflection.
 
4/49 From Stokes - and highest score in innings as well for England.
 
Best All-rounder by a country mile, his impact is unmatchable.

ATG performance in the world cup, brilliant in Ashes, and still going on.
 
Good performance but Windies have done enough damage. Stokes did a good job to knock the lower order but Mark Wood and Jofra Archer disappointed massively.
 
I think by the time his career is done, he should be regarded as that or atleast him and Botham as 1a and 1b. Beefy fell hard during the second half of his career but he has done some superhuman stuff during his career too.
 
Might be an unpopular opinion, but in terms of impact, I think Stokes has a shot at becoming the greatest all-rounder.
 
TeamPak95 said:
Might be an unpopular opinion, but in terms of impact, I think Stokes has a shot at becoming the greatest all-rounder.
Click to expand...

Feel like Sobers has got him. Has the output of an ATG bat like Tendulkar, was solid with the ball and brilliant in the field, probably better than Stokes
 
Well timed 100 and scored at good pace! Putting England in charge now
 
Looks like a double-hundred in the making....
 
Ab Fan said:
He is comfortably a better bowler than Sobers.

A strike rate of 58 when compared to strike rate of 92 has no comparisons.
Click to expand...

Yes. Sobers was a joker with the ball. The excuses and justifications for his pathetic strike rate are laughable.
 
 
Mamoon said:
Yes. Sobers was a joker with the ball. The excuses and justifications for his pathetic strike rate are laughable.
Click to expand...

Sobers was not a joker with bowl. He did took 235 wickets in 93 tests and 6 5-fers. That is a good feat for an all-rounder.

My point is that Stokes is comfortably better than Sobers with bowl as he can win games with the bowl as well. When the match is on line, he often looks better and more threatening than some of his lead bowlers. His strike rate of 58 is as good as any to find a place in the team as a bowler alone.
 
Last edited:
Mamoon said:
Yes. Sobers was a joker with the ball. The excuses and justifications for his pathetic strike rate are laughable.
Click to expand...

No he wasnt he was a product of his era hence his strike rate

To get 200 plus test wickets and 8000 test runs is no joke
 
Last edited:
Ab Fan said:
He is comfortably a better bowler than Sobers.

A strike rate of 58 when compared to strike rate of 92 has no comparisons.
Click to expand...

We don’t know how many overs Sobers bowlers in each of his three styles so he could have had an equivalent s/r to Stokes in his FM roles. Sobers opened the bowling for WI sometimes, and took fivefers that way. Even in his dotage, he was regarded by Bob Woolmer as “a very dangerous left-arm swing bowler”. Remember that Woolmer got three centuries against Lillee and Thomson, so he could play, yet Woolmer describes getting completely stuck at the crease against Sobers, unable to score even singles, and being coached out of his stuck state by Cowdrey at the other end.
 
Mamoon said:
Yes. Sobers was a joker with the ball. The excuses and justifications for his pathetic strike rate are laughable.
Click to expand...

He bowled unfavourable styles for team balance - spin on greentops and pace on dustbowls. His strike rate isn't that bad for his time, especially given the role that he played
 
Ab Fan said:
He is comfortably a better bowler than Sobers.

A strike rate of 58 when compared to strike rate of 92 has no comparisons.
Click to expand...

Really poor comparison though. Completely different roles as bowlers
The modern day equivalent of sobers would be someone who can bat like Smith, bowl spin like Moeen, bowl pace like Curran and field like Smith.
 
therealAB said:
Remeber at this point in his career, Botham could have been considered a top5 cricketer of all time.
Plus the previous poster stated that he is 'already' in the top 5
Click to expand...

well right now, no. Those 5 players the previous posters mentioned are ahead for now. But like I said the other players played in a different era. I definitely believe stokes would have excelled in any era and would be amongst the top5 in the past era's as well. He is just that good. Umbelieve clutch batsman. Quality support bowler.
 
Last edited:
tyron_woodley said:
well right now, no. Those 5 players the previous posters mentioned are ahead for now. But like I said the other players played in a different era. I definitely believe stokes would have excelled in any era and would be amongst the top5 in the past era's as well. He is just that good. Umbelieve clutch batsman. Quality support bowler.
Click to expand...

unbelievable.

I think A batting average of say 41 plus and a bowling average of under 29 will put him in the top 5 comfortably.
 
I think he is the best all-rounder in England's history. He has won a World Cup. He has also played some breathtaking innings.

People may say Botham was better but Botham has never won any major silverware.
 
sweep_shot said:
I think he is the best all-rounder in England's history. He has won a World Cup. He has also played some breathtaking innings.

People may say Botham was better but Botham has never won any major silverware.
Click to expand...

Botham won an ashes though, which is almost as important to the English.
 
therealAB said:
He bowled unfavourable styles for team balance - spin on greentops and pace on dustbowls. His strike rate isn't that bad for his time, especially given the role that he played
Click to expand...

I don't understand this logic, why would anyone bowl unfavourable styles.

I mean if I can bowl fast medium and spin both, I would rather bowl fast medium on green tops and spin on dustbowls to get wickets which will result in bettering of strike rate. If his spin bowling was atrocious, he would most likely bowl fast medium everywhere because that is what he was good at.

All in all, 2.5 wickets per test means that he was similar to Kallis as a test bowler(although more versatile). Kallis had about 150 wickets in his first 60 tests but then he prioritised batting after that. Stokes is comfortably better bowler than both but much inferior as batsmen.
 
Ab Fan said:
I don't understand this logic, why would anyone bowl unfavourable styles.

I mean if I can bowl fast medium and spin both, I would rather bowl fast medium on green tops and spin on dustbowls to get wickets which will result in bettering of strike rate. If his spin bowling was atrocious, he would most likely bowl fast medium everywhere because that is what he was good at.

All in all, 2.5 wickets per test means that he was similar to Kallis as a test bowler(although more versatile). Kallis had about 150 wickets in his first 60 tests but then he prioritised batting after that. Stokes is comfortably better bowler than both but much inferior as batsmen.
Click to expand...

Took me a while to get it as well.

On a seamer, the West Indies would play a pace quartet, and Sobers would be the spinner
On a turner, WI could still go with 2 specialist spinners, with Sobers playing as a pace bowler

Basically he allowed for maximum balance of the attack, picking the best specialists for the conditions
 
Robert said:
You really think Stokes will end up averaging 58 in tests?

I would be surprised if Stokes passes 235 test wickets.

Very similar standard as fielders.
Click to expand...

Stokes has another 5 years in him so he should easily pass Sobers’ tally. All he needs is about 15 wickets per year and he can manage that.

As far as his batting average is concerned, it is not sensible to directly compare averages across two vastly different eras.

The game has changed a lot. There are multiple formats with less recovery time, greater pressure because of the commercialization of the game and a greater variety of bowling attacks.

Not to mention how fielding and athleticism has gone up by several notches. Picking boundaries and rotating the strike has become harder, and the benefit of doubt for the batsmen has decreased.

Nevertheless, over the last year, Stokes has averaged 50+ and considering that he is entering his peak years, he should be averaging around 45 over the next few years.

That is pretty much how I would expect Sobers to perform today. If I accept that he would be averaging 58, I would be conceding that he is at the same level as Smith and Kohli which I don’t think was the case. Sobers is clearly a run below the two greatest batsmen of this generation.
 
Mamoon said:
Stokes has another 5 years in him so he should easily pass Sobers’ tally. All he needs is about 15 wickets per year and he can manage that.

As far as his batting average is concerned, it is not sensible to directly compare averages across two vastly different eras.

The game has changed a lot. There are multiple formats with less recovery time, greater pressure because of the commercialization of the game and a greater variety of bowling attacks.

Not to mention how fielding and athleticism has gone up by several notches. Picking boundaries and rotating the strike has become harder, and the benefit of doubt for the batsmen has decreased.

Nevertheless, over the last year, Stokes has averaged 50+ and considering that he is entering his peak years, he should be averaging around 45 over the next few years.

That is pretty much how I would expect Sobers to perform today. If I accept that he would be averaging 58, I would be conceding that he is at the same level as Smith and Kohli which I don’t think was the case. Sobers is clearly a run below the two greatest batsmen of this generation.
Click to expand...

....who didn’t have to play on uncovered wickets for half their careers. I think Sobers would average more than 58 on modern flat decks and with much better armour and umpire protection.

I want to see the wickets uncovered again, which would expose modern batsmen sharp quick.
 
Ab Fan said:
I don't understand this logic, why would anyone bowl unfavourable styles.

I mean if I can bowl fast medium and spin both, I would rather bowl fast medium on green tops and spin on dustbowls to get wickets which will result in bettering of strike rate. If his spin bowling was atrocious, he would most likely bowl fast medium everywhere because that is what he was good at.

All in all, 2.5 wickets per test means that he was similar to Kallis as a test bowler(although more versatile). Kallis had about 150 wickets in his first 60 tests but then he prioritised batting after that. Stokes is comfortably better bowler than both but much inferior as batsmen.
Click to expand...

It’s hard to say, but I get the impression that Sobers was a test class SLA and swing bowler but not test class at wrist spin. He might have bowled in that style as a last resort if wickets were not coming.

Kallis took 297 test wickets - admittedly assisted by minnowbashing - Stokes will not get that many. I think Kallis chose to be a batting allrounder because SA needed runs more than wickets. He could easily have reduced his batting output to Stokes level and become a world class opening bowler.
 
therealAB said:
Botham won an ashes though, which is almost as important to the English.
Click to expand...

The Ashes are not “almost as important” as the World Cup to us - they are *more* important.

Last summer the WC was merely the warm-up act. The Ashes were the main event.
 
sweep_shot said:
Yes but Ashes is meaningless to all other countries (except for Australia and England).

Stokes has won a world title and that's what counts.
Click to expand...

Joffra Archer has also won a world title. Does that make him better than John Snow and Bob Willis? Of course not.
 
Robert said:
Joffra Archer has also won a world title. Does that make him better than John Snow and Bob Willis? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Archer didn't win the world cup. Stokes did. Archer is highly overrated and perhaps not very disciplined.

Stokes also ensured England made 2-2 during last Ashes. He has proved his worth many times.
 
Last edited:
sweep_shot said:
Archer didn't win the world cup. Stokes did. Archer is highly overrated and perhaps not very disciplined.
Click to expand...

Archer had massive influence on the campaign because he was the highest wicket taker in the tournament. Without him, England would not have reached the final. Then he held his nerve in the super over.
 
Ben Stokes can be one of England's greatest ever, says Dominic Cork

Dominic Cork says Ben Stokes' talent and work ethic can help him become one of England's greatest cricketers ever.

The 29-year-old is averaging over 51 with the bat in Test cricket since the start of 2019 after his superb 176 on day two of the second Test against West Indies at Emirates Old Trafford.

Stokes' bowling has also been key for his side, including when his tireless spell in Cape Town over the winter dragged England to victory over South Africa and back to 1-1 in a series they went on to win 3-1.

Speaking on The Cricket Debate, former England seamer Cork said: "It could have been the end three years ago [with the Bristol incident] and I think he realised just what he has got as a talent.

"I genuinely think he can get better because of his work ethic. He wants to bat, he wants to bowl, he wants to work on his game, wants to get better.

"I know he works a hell of a lot on his bowling as well. I just see this man not becoming only the best in the world but one of the best we have had ever. That's how highly I rate him."

Cork's fellow Cricket Debate guest, Sussex's former Essex and England star Ravi Bopara, says Stokes has relished the responsibility of being a senior player and go-to-guy for his side.

Stokes' glittering 2019 including playing an instrumental role in England's win over New Zealand in the Cricket World Cup final and then scoring an unbeaten 135 in the fourth Ashes Test against Australia at Emerald Headingley as the hosts pulled off a remarkable one-wicket victory.

"I think there has definitely been a change with Ben," said Bopara.

"He is a fiery character and always has been - even if you are playing PlayStation in hotel rooms!

"But as he has had a more important role in the side as an all-rounder, making an impact with bat and ball, winning games for England, and since England have started looking at him as the main guy, his attitude has changed with it.

"He has always been a hard worker - he bats for hours and is a bit of a machine when it comes to fitness - but he looks like he has got his head in the right place.

"He has made his mistakes and learnt from them. He looks a formidable cricketer."
Click to expand...

Link: https://www.skysports.com/cricket/n...e-of-englands-greatest-ever-says-dominic-cork
 
Stokes is good for modern era but not sure of all-time. He should surely be in top 10.

Top 10 all-rounders ever

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Jacques Kallis
4. Keith Miller
5. Ian Botham
6. Kapil Dev
7. Ben Stokes
8. Chris Cairns
9. Andrew Flintoff
10. Shakib Al Hasan

So, Stokes at best is 7th and second best after Botham for England.
 
Ted123 said:
Stokes is good for modern era but not sure of all-time. He should surely be in top 10.

Top 10 all-rounders ever

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Jacques Kallis
4. Keith Miller
5. Ian Botham
6. Kapil Dev
7. Ben Stokes
8. Chris Cairns
9. Andrew Flintoff
10. Shakib Al Hasan

So, Stokes at best is 7th and second best after Botham for England.
Click to expand...

I roughly concur but you are missing Tony Greig whom I would put just below Kapil, and Trevor Bailey whom would I would slot in above Flintoff.
 
Don't think Stokes has done anywhere near enough to dislodge Botham from the top, probably needs another 4000 runs and 150 wickets.
 
Ted123 said:
Stokes is good for modern era but not sure of all-time. He should surely be in top 10.

Top 10 all-rounders ever

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Jacques Kallis
4. Keith Miller
5. Ian Botham
6. Kapil Dev
7. Ben Stokes
8. Chris Cairns
9. Andrew Flintoff
10. Shakib Al Hasan

So, Stokes at best is 7th and second best after Botham for England.
Click to expand...

Chris Cairns? He was quite average.
 
Ted123 said:
Stokes is good for modern era but not sure of all-time. He should surely be in top 10.

Top 10 all-rounders ever

1. Gary Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Jacques Kallis
4. Keith Miller
5. Ian Botham
6. Kapil Dev
7. Ben Stokes
8. Chris Cairns
9. Andrew Flintoff
10. Shakib Al Hasan

So, Stokes at best is 7th and second best after Botham for England.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Stokes at 7 and just below Botham and Kapil but ahead of Greig, Cairns and Flintoff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Buffet
James Anderson's Test XI of players he played with or against
Replies
32
Views
635
Romali_rotti
Romali_rotti
C
ICC World Cup 2023: Afghanistan (284 all out) beat England (215 all out) by 69 runs in shock ICC Cricket World Cup win
9 10 11
Replies
802
Views
15K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
MenInG
Ben Stokes reverses his retirement from One-Day International cricket
2 3
Replies
186
Views
14K
pratiktc
P
MenInG
[VIDEOS] Ben Stokes named England Men’s Test Skipper: captaincy watch thread
2
Replies
92
Views
6K
Cricket Warrior
C
MenInG
Babar (61*) takes Pakistan to 107/2 after Abrar’s 7-114 helps restrict England to 281 all out
6 7 8
Replies
568
Views
18K
Amjid Javed
Amjid Javed
Back
Top