Ben Stokes

[Gingerfinch]

It's started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32881042

[Durhamfootman]

It's started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32881042

indeed it has

blah, blah, blah, Ian Botham. Blah, blah, blah, Freddie Flintoff

a couple of ducks later........................Blah, blah, blah, load of sh1te. Blah, blah, blah, no technique for test cricket. Blah, blah, blah, doesn't even have an imaginary horse.

[meninblue]

It's started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32881042

When Sunny retired, somebody would have laughed if it was said that a better batsman than Sunny will be seen from India. Sachin, Sehwag, Rahul went on to achieve bigger things breaking many records. When Sachin retired most wondered if there could be a better Indian cricketer. Virat Kohli has shown he can play better ODI cricket than Sachin. When Virat retires, some other cricketer will do better. Fans only feel that their generation cricketers were better and the future ones are not as good even though they have been better and will be better. When Gary Sobers retired nobody anticipated Kallis would match him over much longer matches in all formats. Some modern cricketers are getting better than the previous generations. Likewise i do not see whats wrong if fans are expecting Ben Stokes to be better all rounder than Freddie. It's not as if Ben Stokes is being compared to Jacques Kallis or Gary Sobers at this point of time. Expecting Ben to match Freddie is not a very tough task like it would be to expect him to do Gary Sobers or Kallis. It's a very modest expectation. In spite of inexperience,Ben Stokes already is averaging similar with the bat as Freddie did at end of his test career and is picking same number of wickets per test. Even Irfan Pathan had similar records and he too was not rated as a very good test all rounder. Actually Ben Stokes should be looking to set a better benchmark for future England all rounders.

[Aidan11]

It's started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32881042

Surprised it took them this long to say it.

[Gingerfinch]

It's started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32881042

When Sunny retired, somebody would have laughed if it was said that a better batsman than Sunny will be seen from India. Sachin, Sehwag, Rahul went on to achieve bigger things breaking many records. When Sachin retired most wondered if there could be a better Indian cricketer. Virat Kohli has shown he can play better ODI cricket than Sachin. When Virat retires, some other cricketer will do better. Fans only feel that their generation cricketers were better and the future ones are not as good even though they have been better and will be better. When Gary Sobers retired nobody anticipated Kallis would match him over much longer matches in all formats. Some modern cricketers are getting better than the previous generations. Likewise i do not see whats wrong if fans are expecting Ben Stokes to be better all rounder than Freddie. It's not as if Ben Stokes is being compared to Jacques Kallis or Gary Sobers at this point of time. Expecting Ben to match Freddie is not a very tough task like it would be to expect him to do Gary Sobers or Kallis. It's a very modest expectation. In spite of inexperience,Ben Stokes already is averaging similar with the bat as Freddie did at end of his test career and is picking same number of wickets per test. Even Irfan Pathan had similar records and he too was not rated as a very good test all rounder. Actually Ben Stokes should be looking to set a better benchmark for future England all rounders.

It's the hype I was referring to. Us fickle English have a tendency to big people up, then put them down.

[sussexpob]

He contributes much much better with bat than specialist bowlers.

But at current, he is the 2nd worst specialist bowler in two decades on his performances....

His two innings were very significant not only in the number of runs (92 and 101) but as they were scored at ODI run rate it allowed England to win the match.

And with the ball, he bowled 20 overs for no wicket and 105 runs gave away.... his economy rates in his last few tests have been incredibly high. He can lose you a game with a long spell to, it seems.

Yesterday i watched match and he was being used to pick wickets. Someone incapable to pick wickets is not bowled at that stage of the match. So its just not about stats, subjectively too it was clear he was being used as wicket taker yesterday even though if he might have picked zero wickets

At one point the ball got to Joe Root (when NZ were 6 down odd) so not sure if the captain had that much faith, that is true.

In the Windies with England needing to bowl out Windies for the series win, he got two overs.... 7 in the test... it was clear that Cook didn't want to hand him the ball.

He has shown with his two tons that he can give results like a specialist batsman in some matches and can give results like a specialist bowler in some matches.

That is not up for debate, the "averge" return for an all rounder is what matters..... you don't pick a player that is on average really poor on the expectation he wins you a match when he finally performs.

A specialist bowler or bat can do the matchwinning innings thing more, so what makes you pick an allrounder? Its because obviously their dual skills are important..... if they don't have a dual skill to test standard, then it matters little.

I don't think you can tell me that Stokes has so far looked like a test match bowler, and Root and Ali as the back up bowlers to the main seam attack have been similar (Root at 42 average) and much better (Ali at 29).... as I said on another thread, Nick Compton was a failure with the bat, he scored his 2nd and last century well before his 10th test.

With Stokes, you have to ask.... is the combined effort of 35 with bat, 40 with ball justifying keeping a specialist out the team? Its clear both marks are 5-10 runs away from specialist performance, so is his weakest factor good enough to make up for it? I think not.

[meninblue]

It's started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/32881042

When Sunny retired, somebody would have laughed if it was said that a better batsman than Sunny will be seen from India. Sachin, Sehwag, Rahul went on to achieve bigger things breaking many records. When Sachin retired most wondered if there could be a better Indian cricketer. Virat Kohli has shown he can play better ODI cricket than Sachin. When Virat retires, some other cricketer will do better. Fans only feel that their generation cricketers were better and the future ones are not as good even though they have been better and will be better. When Gary Sobers retired nobody anticipated Kallis would match him over much longer matches in all formats. Some modern cricketers are getting better than the previous generations. Likewise i do not see whats wrong if fans are expecting Ben Stokes to be better all rounder than Freddie. It's not as if Ben Stokes is being compared to Jacques Kallis or Gary Sobers at this point of time. Expecting Ben to match Freddie is not a very tough task like it would be to expect him to do Gary Sobers or Kallis. It's a very modest expectation. In spite of inexperience,Ben Stokes already is averaging similar with the bat as Freddie did at end of his test career and is picking same number of wickets per test. Even Irfan Pathan had similar records and he too was not rated as a very good test all rounder. Actually Ben Stokes should be looking to set a better benchmark for future England all rounders.

It's the hype I was referring to. Us fickle English have a tendency to big people up, then put them down.

It is but obvious if fans are disappointed that the cricketer they expect to do well as all rounder cannot surpass 34 runs and 3 wickets per test. Even in India most fans were disappointed that we could not find a better multi skilled player than Irfan Pathan until Ashwin came and now has batting average of 35 and 4 wickets per test. But now some feel we need a better multi skilled test player than Ashwin. There is no full stop to expectations. It is bound to happen.

[sussexpob]

In fact, when taken into account the true net effect to his team, for every wicket over the allotted expected frontline specialist (as discussed above, atm in Stokes case he is 16.5 runs per over less better off, due to how much he is bowling, wickets he is taking and cost), is the all round runs worth it? All you need to do is add 16.5 to the average of all of your bowlers averages, and you see the net effect isn't anywhere near as much as you think. Even someone like Courtney Walsh would end up an all rounder when the differences between bowling qualities are added to batting quality.

I don't, for one, buy this argument that you pick a guy in hope rather then expectation.... if you have an Australia team from 2001 then yes, pick a guy who is like that, for a 5th ranked test team who are losing or drawing a lot, you need consistency.

You cant ignore failure for peaks in performance. I think that is dumb.... he might win you a test like yesterday, but how many does that selection policy lose you?

[budgetmeansbudget]

We either talk about these guys as world beaters or as absolutely useless, and often in the space of a couple of games.

Can't we just have him as a 23 year old prospect who has just shown us a taste of the talent he has mostly with the bat but also a tadge with the ball. It is now up to him to sustain the form which has just propelled him into the limelight and not fade back into the average cricketer he has been for the past year or so.

[meninblue]

He contributes much much better with bat than specialist bowlers.

But at current, he is the 2nd worst specialist bowler in two decades on his performances....

His two innings were very significant not only in the number of runs (92 and 101) but as they were scored at ODI run rate it allowed England to win the match.

And with the ball, he bowled 20 overs for no wicket and 105 runs gave away.... his economy rates in his last few tests have been incredibly high. He can lose you a game with a long spell to, it seems.

Yesterday i watched match and he was being used to pick wickets. Someone incapable to pick wickets is not bowled at that stage of the match. So its just not about stats, subjectively too it was clear he was being used as wicket taker yesterday even though if he might have picked zero wickets

At one point the ball got to Joe Root (when NZ were 6 down odd) so not sure if the captain had that much faith, that is true.

In the Windies with England needing to bowl out Windies for the series win, he got two overs.... 7 in the test... it was clear that Cook didn't want to hand him the ball.

He has shown with his two tons that he can give results like a specialist batsman in some matches and can give results like a specialist bowler in some matches.

That is not up for debate, the "averge" return for an all rounder is what matters..... you don't pick a player that is on average really poor on the expectation he wins you a match when he finally performs.

A specialist bowler or bat can do the matchwinning innings thing more, so what makes you pick an allrounder? Its because obviously their dual skills are important..... if they don't have a dual skill to test standard, then it matters little.

I don't think you can tell me that Stokes has so far looked like a test match bowler, and Root and Ali as the back up bowlers to the main seam attack have been similar (Root at 42 average) and much better (Ali at 29).... as I said on another thread, Nick Compton was a failure with the bat, he scored his 2nd and last century well before his 10th test.

.With Stokes, you have to ask.... is the combined effort of 35 with bat, 40 with ball justifying keeping a specialist out the team? Its clear both marks are 5-10 runs away from specialist performance, so is his weakest factor good enough to make up for it? I think not

By that concept, even Freddie was not worthy as he averaged only 31 although he averaged 33 with the ball. I think Freddie was the best available option for England although he was no way in class of Kallis. Likewise Ben stokes too is not giving Kallis like results but at least he is matching Freddie and is best pace bowling all rounder available in England. They can choose only from what is available and if Freddie and Ben Stokes are their best, then they have to be picked even though they may not be as good as all multi skilled cricketers from other countries. Moeen si multi skilled but spin type, unlike Ben so the selectors are ending with picking Ben as well because most of their matches are likely to favor pacers

[yorker_129-7]

The stats are almost irrelevant with Stokes. He makes things happen.

England have spent far too long playing with stats and cricketers who do nice jobs, hence why they stuck for too long with Bresnan and others. Flintoff early in his career was not a solid, steady bowler, he was someone you threw the ball to to make something happen, and Stokes is like that. Same with his batting. Flintoff improved, especially with the ball, to become a more reliable option, and down the line if Stokes can do that as well then that would be ideal, but I don't really care if his bowling average is 40+ at the moment, in a team with Broad and Anderson he doesn't need to be taking 5/20 every innings.

[meninblue]

In fact, when taken into account the true net effect to his team, for every wicket over the allotted expected frontline specialist (as discussed above, atm in Stokes case he is 16.5 runs per over less better off, due to how much he is bowling, wickets he is taking and cost), is the all round runs worth it? All you need to do is add 16.5 to the average of all of your bowlers averages, and you see the net effect isn't anywhere near as much as you think. Even someone like Courtney Walsh would end up an all rounder when the differences between bowling qualities are added to batting quality.

I don't, for one, buy this argument that you pick a guy in hope rather then expectation.... if you have an Australia team from 2001 then yes, pick a guy who is like that, for a 5th ranked test team who are losing or drawing a lot, you need consistency.

You cant ignore failure for peaks in performance. I think that is dumb.... he might win you a test like yesterday, but how many does that selection policy lose you?

Would you please name one multi skilled cricketer (medium/fast pace bowling + batsman) from England who you think will giver better batting average and more wickets per test than Ben Stokes.

Is the lack of a excellent all rounder the only reason for losses. Were the matches not lost by specialist batsman and bowlers as well. Haven't there been peaks and lows for specialist batters and bowlers in same tests

[sussexpob]

By that concept, even Freddie was not worthy as he averaged only 31 although he averaged 33 with the ball. I think Freddie was the best available option for England although he was no way in class of Kallis. Likewise Ben stokes too is not giving Kallis like results but at least he is matching Freddie and is best pace bowling all rounder available in England. They can choose only from what is available and if Freddie and Ben Stokes are their best, then they have to be picked even though they may not be as good as all multi skilled cricketers from other countries. Moeen si multi skilled but spin type, unlike Ben so the selectors are ending with picking Ben as well because most of their matches are likely to favor pacers

1. Flintoff was a really big guy, and his original bowling action caused him a multi-tude of issues with fitness due to his considerably weight causing stress to his ankles. He had something like 5 or 6 major surgeries on his ankle through his career, and other upper body impact related injury problems. It wasn't until he completely remodelled his action in 2002 that his body maintained fitness enough for him to lose weight, bowl at full pace and be able to really become a proper bowler how gained some confidence and form. He shouldn't have been picked until he was fit, at this point.

His record between 2003 and 2007 was pretty magnificent, but after the 2007 world cup his ankle gave way and he became selectable only through nostalgia of his past qualities. His career record would have been much better had England done the right thing and retire him long before 2009. He was a write off for 2-3 years at the end.

At his peak, when he had fitness and wasn't suffering from the effects of constant surgery, he went through a period of 3-4 years where, if memory serves, he averaged 45 with the bat, and 27/28 with the ball. Comparable to some of the very best players, and good enough to play specialist in virtually every team in history, with either discipline.

2. I think England were most successful under Flower with a 4 man attack and a back up part time option, and had a composition of 6 batters, WK, 4 man attack... you seem to assume England need an allrounder and have to pick the best available, this is not the case. As I said, before this test he bowled 7 overs in 2 innings in Bridgetown, hardly worth of a pick over a specialist.

[sussexpob]

Would you please name one multi skilled cricketer (medium/fast pace bowling + batsman) from England who you think will giver better batting average and more wickets per test than Ben Stokes.

Is the lack of a excellent all rounder the only reason for losses. Were the matches not lost by specialist batsman and bowlers as well. Haven't there been peaks and lows for specialist batters and bowlers in same tests

As I said, England were successful with a 4 man attack in the past, and I could name you a long list of players I expect to average more than 35 with the bat in tests, or average less than 40 per wicket. As for lack of excellent all rounders, we do have a guy in CC who averages 38 with bat, 23 with ball, I don't think he is anywhere near the radar (Gidman).

[meninblue]

The stats are almost irrelevant with Stokes. He makes things happen.

England have spent far too long playing with stats and cricketers who do nice jobs, hence why they stuck for too long with Bresnan and others. Flintoff early in his career was not a solid, steady bowler, he was someone you threw the ball to to make something happen, and Stokes is like that. Same with his batting. Flintoff improved, especially with the ball, to become a more reliable option, and down the line if Stokes can do that as well then that would be ideal, but I don't really care if his bowling average is 40+ at the moment, in a team with Broad and Anderson he doesn't need to be taking 5/20 every innings.

His stats too are not bad as well for an inexperienced test player. It's up there with some all rounders. Subjectively too we saw how he can make things happen. One cannot buy time but he actually bought time yesterday. Almost 2 sessions !!He deserves chances stats wise as well as subjective wise.