Will there will be another Shane Warne or Garry Sobers?

[Cric1234]

I don’t agree. Stokes is a vastly superior batsman compared to Flintoff.

Stokes’ peak is starting now, and I expect him to flourish with the bat for the next 4-5 years.

He has been a world class player for 2-3 years now, but 2019 was the year where he transcended from world class into all-time great category.

If Stokes tapers off and averages around 35 between now and 2024-25, I would agree with you in hindsight. However, I don’t see that happening.

He always had the capability of playing magical innings, but now he has added consistency to his game which was not always there in the early years of his career, hence an overall average of 37 that does not do justice to his skills.

At the moment Flintoff is a better bowler in limited overs and similar level to Stokes in tests so no Stokes isn’t all time great category while his batting is better it doesn’t mean he can keep on getting better.

 

[ManFan]

Stokes >> Flintoff

Flintoff managed to peak in the most memorable series ever. That is the only reason he is viewed so highly. Ztokes could retire now and be better

I said like Flintoff, not equal, worse, or better.

 

[ManFan]

I don’t agree. Stokes is a vastly superior batsman compared to Flintoff.

Stokes’ peak is starting now, and I expect him to flourish with the bat for the next 4-5 years.

He has been a world class player for 2-3 years now, but 2019 was the year where he transcended from world class into all-time great category.

If Stokes tapers off and averages around 35 between now and 2024-25, I would agree with you in hindsight. However, I don’t see that happening.

He always had the capability of playing magical innings, but now he has added consistency to his game which was not always there in the early years of his career, hence an overall average of 37 that does not do justice to his skills.

He’s great but not consistent enough besides a few select innings to be considered amongst the pantheon of ATG all-rounders.

He’s still a little too poor with the ball for my liking.

 

[Slog]

Cricket is particularly notorious sport when it comes to overrating players of the past. While in others sports the “establishment” has no problem with calling Messi, Federer or Tiger Woods the GOATs of their respective sports, it is an absolute crime for any modern cricketer to be considered better or even equal to the big name players of the past.

Past cricketers have become larger than life figures with magical skills who were capable of superhuman feats.

If Stokes played for England at the same time as Sobers, his legend would now be much greater and there would be plenty of anecdotal evidence provided to ensure that no modern all-rounder can dare to be compared to him.

I really wish we could develop a time machine so that a lot of myths are busted and Lloyd’s West Indies losing in India, Bradman gets outclassed by Smith, Hobbs struggles to score more runs than Cook while opening the batting for England, and Alan Davidson proves to be a lesser bowler than Boult let alone Wasim.

The standard of cricket has remained fairly consistent since the 1970s with the rise of the first two genuine fast bowlers - Lillee and Thompson - they raised the bar and other teams including West Indies had to quickly find out their own genuine fast bowlers and evolve in order to stay competitive.

The legends of the pre-70 cricketers need to be revered and respect for what they achieved in their time, but their statistics need to be taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to comparisons with contemporary cricketers.

Your argument would stand for Bradman, Hobbs etc perhaps but Sobers played after the professionalization of cricket. Even if you watch his batting videos he looks a solid batsman with a good shot range. Bradman for example if you look from the modern lens looks a very limited batsman so I can get your argument there eventhough I don’t personally subscribe to it. But even with your filters, Sobers did well in a wide variety of conditions against different types of bowlers.

 

[Cric1234]

Your argument would stand for Bradman, Hobbs etc perhaps but Sobers played after the professionalization of cricket. Even if you watch his batting videos he looks a solid batsman with a good shot range. Bradman for example if you look from the modern lens looks a very limited batsman so I can get your argument there eventhough I don’t personally subscribe to it. But even with your filters, Sobers did well in a wide variety of conditions against different types of bowlers.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpJeh5_BGPo

[utube]UpJeh5_BGPo[/utube]

From 3.15 onwards you can see Wally Hammond batting in the nets doesn’t look too inferior to modern day greats but was over 40 runs behind in terms of average to Bradman how limited was he?

 

[therealAB]

Your argument would stand for Bradman, Hobbs etc perhaps but Sobers played after the professionalization of cricket. Even if you watch his batting videos he looks a solid batsman with a good shot range. Bradman for example if you look from the modern lens looks a very limited batsman so I can get your argument there eventhough I don’t personally subscribe to it. But even with your filters, Sobers did well in a wide variety of conditions against different types of bowlers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjZHfEIEJ54
Wouldn't agree with the limited range of strokes. Here he has played glances, flicks, cuts, late cuts, pulls, drives etc. Doesn't have any of the dumb shots like reverses and stuff obviously. Border only had 3/4 shots and he made 10,000 runs, its about how well you play them and the concentration you have

 

[azimiqbal]

They will never be another Murli !

With all the new laws he probably would of been deemed illegal


Jokes aside my list will look like

Wasim Akram
Viv Richards
Imran Khan
Brain Lara
Muhammed Asif

 

[Robert]

Hammond was not an all-rounder, Kallis was, he got to 150 wickets in 60 tests.

Hammond took 83 test wickets which was good for a FM in pre-WW2 days. Only spinners went past a hundred test wickets then.

 

[Robert]

If a bowler with 92 are rate opens the bowling then I a sure that team didn't had many quality bowlers.
Stokes is a better bowler than Sobers buy yeah far behind him in batting.

They had Wes Hall who was the best fast bowler of the sixties. Sobey sometimes took the new ball ahead of Griffith who was no slouch, and bowled out England sides with Boycott, Barrington and Cowdrey in them.

But he bowled more slow stuff because that was what WI required and as pointed out, spinners had low strike rates in those dats due to the different lbw law.

 

[NishanKonar]

Cricket is particularly notorious sport when it comes to overrating players of the past. While in others sports the “establishment” has no problem with calling Messi, Federer or Tiger Woods the GOATs of their respective sports, it is an absolute crime for any modern cricketer to be considered better or even equal to the big name players of the past.

Past cricketers have become larger than life figures with magical skills who were capable of superhuman feats.

If Stokes played for England at the same time as Sobers, his legend would now be much greater and there would be plenty of anecdotal evidence provided to ensure that no modern all-rounder can dare to be compared to him.

I really wish we could develop a time machine so that a lot of myths are busted and Lloyd’s West Indies losing in India, Bradman gets outclassed by Smith, Hobbs struggles to score more runs than Cook while opening the batting for England, and Alan Davidson proves to be a lesser bowler than Boult let alone Wasim.

The standard of cricket has remained fairly consistent since the 1970s with the rise of the first two genuine fast bowlers - Lillee and Thompson - they raised the bar and other teams including West Indies had to quickly find out their own genuine fast bowlers and evolve in order to stay competitive.

The legends of the pre-70 cricketers need to be revered and respect for what they achieved in their time, but their statistics need to be taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to comparisons with contemporary cricketers.

Problem with argument is it applies to all sports. Every sport evolves so much across generations that legends of yesteryear will look average by today's standards

Example Jesse Owens. Olympic Legend. 4 golds at Berlin Olympics in 1936. But look at his timings - 10.3 secs in 100m & 20.7 secs in 200m. These are very mediocre timings for today's standards - Usain Bolt probably runs faster than while doing warm ups !! But that does not diminish Jesse Owens' legend. He was best of his era

Same with tennis legends of 1930s - Fred Perry & Don Budge . Forget Djokovic & Nadal, they will probably lose in straight sets to Naomi Osaka !

You can only judge a player by standards of his era & how he fared against his peers !!!

 

[Mamoon]

Your argument would stand for Bradman, Hobbs etc perhaps but Sobers played after the professionalization of cricket. Even if you watch his batting videos he looks a solid batsman with a good shot range. Bradman for example if you look from the modern lens looks a very limited batsman so I can get your argument there eventhough I don’t personally subscribe to it. But even with your filters, Sobers did well in a wide variety of conditions against different types of bowlers.

I am not demeaning Sobers’ batting, but I am not convinced that he would be a 57 average player today because I don’t think that he was in the same class as Smith and Kohli - the number 1 and number 2 Test batsmen in the world today, and certainly one of the best ever (Smith is probably the GOAT Test batsman).

Stokes is entering his peak years now and he averaged 48 in the last calendar year and you would expect him to average around 44-45 over the next few years considering the fact that he has taken his game up a notch especially in terms of consistency.

I think Sobers would have been similar today, and that would make him the best all-rounder of this era along with Stokes and Shakib by a big margin.

A better batsman than Shakib but a lesser bowler, and an equal batsman to Stokes but slightly lesser bowler. That horrendous SR of 92 cannot be excused because he bowled fast, medium, spin etc. at the same time.

It is not just Stokes though - had Sobers played in the 80’s, he wouldn’t have proved himself to be in a different league to the 4 great all-rounders of the era, but he certainly would have made West Indies even stronger.

 

[Faizhassan]

One does not need to look at the stats, but their overall impact at the game. This is where Shane Warne, Sachin Tendulkar, Imran Khan and to a lesser extent guys like Ganguly and Mccullum really count. You talk to so many players and they give examples of these cricketers and how they either brought their game to a higher level or even prompt them to start Cricket. I think a more appropriate player would be Viv Richards as compared to Sobers. The swag, the bubble gum burst, the attitude is still not matched for all these years. Cricket at times needs these "characters" otherwise it would become too much of a "Vanilla" game.

 

[sindhiboy]

Sobers and kallis were average bowlers. They could not bowl reverse swing and take wickets on flat pitches like stokes can.

Imran khan, botham and stokes are the only all rounders who could actually make their teams as pure batters or bowlers.

 

[Robert]

Sobers and kallis were average bowlers. They could not bowl reverse swing and take wickets on flat pitches like stokes can.

Imran khan, botham and stokes are the only all rounders who could actually make their teams as pure batters or bowlers.

Sobers got into the WI side as a SLA not a batsman. He rapidly turned into the world’s best batter though.

Kallis could have had a career as a bowler but focused on his batting and still got nearly 300 test wickets.

Stokes wouldn’t get in as a bowler alone. I will be surprised if he passes 200.

 

[Faizhassan]

Sobers got into the WI side as a SLA not a batsman. He rapidly turned into the world’s best batter though.

Kallis could have had a career as a bowler but focused on his batting and still got nearly 300 test wickets.

Stokes wouldn’t get in as a bowler alone. I will be surprised if he passes 200.

As i said it is not about the statistics, it is about persona, and the character they bring to the game. This is where Kallis really lets down. On the other hand, Stokes is always in the news for right or wrong reasons.

 

[sweep_shot]

You never know.

These once in a lifetime bowlers can pop up anytime.

 

[Robert]

I agree with the bit on Stokes. World cup hero, Ashes hero. Still has 5 years or more left in him with potential peak. Would go down as greatest English allrounder for sure and would be arguably top 3 best all-rounders ever in test cricket.

No way. It is daft how the youngster overrate this guy based on one ODI match and one Ashes century.

He will probably push his batting average into the forties but in doing so will be no better than Greig and certainly no Botham. Stokes has what, four fivefers in sixty tests? Botham had twenty by that marker and nine centuries, facing better fast bowlers than Stokes. Just look at the BBC footage of Headingley 1991, it’s available now.

 

[Ab Fan]

<B>I am not demeaning Sobers’ batting, but I am not convinced that he would be a 57 average player today because I don’t think that he was in the same class as Smith and Kohli - the number 1 and number 2 Test batsmen in the world today, and certainly one of the best ever (Smith is probably the GOAT Test batsman)</B>.

Stokes is entering his peak years now and he averaged 48 in the last calendar year and you would expect him to average around 44-45 over the next few years considering the fact that he has taken his game up a notch especially in terms of consistency.

I think Sobers would have been similar today, and that would make him the best all-rounder of this era along with Stokes and Shakib by a big margin.

A better batsman than Shakib but a lesser bowler, and an equal batsman to Stokes but slightly lesser bowler. That horrendous SR of 92 cannot be excused because he bowled fast, medium, spin etc. at the same time.

It is not just Stokes though - had Sobers played in the 80’s, he wouldn’t have proved himself to be in a different league to the 4 great all-rounders of the era, but he certainly would have made West Indies even stronger.

The league of batting doesn't end with Smith and Kohli. In terms of batting, <B>Sobers</B>, then a league below comes <B>Border</B>, a league below comes <B>Cook</B> and then a league below comes <B>Stokes</B>!

you can see the gulf of difference in batting between Sobers and Stokes before comparing the two.

 

[Firebat]

Could never quite get that Test century...

 

[therealAB]

Could never quite get that Test century...

View attachment 102882

And it was a no ball...