Ben Stokes

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think if you picked an all time England XI, the most recent cap in it would be Ken Barrington. For every other nation, you'd have recently retired players in there. South Africa and New Zealand would have current players in.

[Dr Cricket]

saying that seeing the headlines stokes is getting nice to see cricket getting in the back pages and getting people watching it again in this country.

[braveneutral]

A comparison to I Pathan is harsh to both players,

[m@tt]

Right now reckon only Australia, South Africa will be worried.
Don't really see Stokes a threat in England or in Asia yet.
more likely to be a gun in SA or Aus where the flat decks, pace and bounce suit him.
of course they be worried if he did have a special day though.

They still have to face him in England though.

[sussexpob]

Right now reckon only Australia, South Africa will be worried.
Don't really see Stokes a threat in England or in Asia yet.
more likely to be a gun in SA or Aus where the flat decks, pace and bounce suit him.
of course they be worried if he did have a special day though.

They still have to face him in England though.

His record in England is pretty poor, the conditions at home suit him less because he plays so hard at the ball.

[sussexpob]

In fact, the innings in Newlands shows that Stokes my thrive on those types of surfaces, but if he had played that way on an English wicket with movement he wouldnt have lasted long. Until he got to about 120-130, the only convincing shots he was playing were the very over pitched balls that he caressed through the covers, they were pretty classy shots I have to give him that.

But the stuff he was hitting down the ground werent as convincing. A bit of swing or a bit more bounce playing those balls, and its catching practice for the cordon. He played the short ball in the second half of the innings pretty well too, but in the first half his technique was pretty poor and he was lucky that on a few occasions he got enough bat on it to take it into the outfield. He moves all over the place and takes his eyes off the short ball.

Same I guess can be said of the spinner. At times he rushed down the pitch and swung at the ball.... he was very fortunate that he got enough bat on ball to take it over fielders heads, but again, he plays that way 9 times out of 10 he is back without troubling the scorers..... I mean one miscue went over long offs head only a fraction, it was a poorly executed shot really, and he was lucky

[sussexpob]

I think this innings can some Stokes up, because he doesnt have a consistent technique or desire to play test cricket style innings. On flat pitches he might smash a few people around for quickfire scores, but any pitch that does anything I cant expect him to last long on.

In many ways he represents a lot of the reason the standard of test cricket has lowered. If he wants to be a very good test player then he has to learn how to grit out innings.

[Arthur Crabtree]

He hits through the ball really nicely, and plays very straight. On a pitch with true, reliable bounce, he can be very potent. He's going to be an attacking batter, but he can be useful that way.

[m@tt]

Right now reckon only Australia, South Africa will be worried.
Don't really see Stokes a threat in England or in Asia yet.
more likely to be a gun in SA or Aus where the flat decks, pace and bounce suit him.
of course they be worried if he did have a special day though.

They still have to face him in England though.

His record in England is pretty poor, the conditions at home suit him less because he plays so hard at the ball.

Depends on the pitch. The seamers produced against Australia don't batsmen in general. But we saw with his century at Lord's what he can do in England.

[alfie]

To be honest , I didn't expect this spectacular effort to win Sussex over. It is a point of view - if you just judge by figures , Stokes still hasn't quite proved himself. I think that is nonsense - don't believe you can assess an all rounder purely on averages : but I can see that some may disagree.

Thing is ; I suspect Stokes will in fact improve his figures quite a lot over the next few years - he is at times a bit too rash ; and judgement develops with experience. But that is for the future. Right now he is rightly (imho) a fixture at six for England ; and if he plays the odd matchwinning innings I am prepared to forgive occasional lapses. (Yes I know they din't win this . But that wasn't Stokes' fault.)

[sussexpob]

To be honest , I didn't expect this spectacular effort to win Sussex over. It is a point of view - if you just judge by figures , Stokes still hasn't quite proved himself. I think that is nonsense - don't believe you can assess an all rounder purely on averages : but I can see that some may disagree.

I think you have to add the reality of usefulness into his efforts. In tests, his best bowling came in a dead rubber 5th test and a point at which Australia had been bowled out for 60 and were over 350 behind after the first innings. Other than that he hasnt done anything in tests, and routinely bowls way too expensively. In ODI's he has the third worst economy rate recorded, and goes at nearly ten an over in T20's while not taking many wickets.

With the bat, his top score was in a test where both teams could have scored 700- 800 had they batted to completion on a pitch that was never giving a result, and a 120 which was hit quickly when England needed to bat out a day and a singe figure score in more balls would have been more useful. He has yet to show he can bat in a proper test innings, and simply hits at everything and only scores if he is lucky. He has yet to prove anything in limited overs with the bat.

I think the only real innings he impressed was at Lords vs NZ where the game and series was alive, and a few bursts with the ball when he has been able to be controlled enough to add pressure.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Ben's stats aren't exactly equivalent to other bowlers (though in the last twelve months, his econ is similar to Finn and Wood, and his in the general run of bowlers, he sits next to front line operators like Taylor, Pattinson and Gabriel). This is partly because he gets to bowl unadvantageous overs. Cook doesn't give him the ball in the first 40 overs of the first innings, and only in the second if his colleagues are tired. He bowls with defensive fields, and in my opinion, he has been captained badly. He not only comes on to bowl when partnerships are underway, but Cook has often taken him off when he's taken a wicket to give the new batter to A&B. He bowls a lot in overs 50-80, when the opposition tend to attack.

It's up to Ben to play well enough to earn better opportunities, as Freddie had to. But that's how it's been for him so far.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Disappointing to read about his furious sledging.

[sussexpob]

This is partly because he gets to bowl unadvantageous overs. Cook doesn't give him the ball in the first 40 overs of the first innings, and only in the second if his colleagues are tired. He bowls with defensive fields, and in my opinion, he has been captained badly. He not only comes on to bowl when partnerships are underway, but Cook has often taken him off when he's taken a wicket to give the new batter to A&B. He bowls a lot in overs 50-80, when the opposition tend to attack

Per innings, he sends on average about 3 overs less than Stuart Broad (15 as opposed to 18 per innings from Broad in the period of Stokes career) and 4 less than Anderson, so the limitation in bowling is not that much of a hampering. As for bowling at more difficult times, his proportion of wickets for the last four positions shows that he has the benefit of bowling much more of his overs at the tail. Despite taking about 50 wickets less in the same matches generally than the new ball attack, he has taken 5 more tail ender wickets than Anderson, and only just short of Broad (iirc, Stokes has 20 wickets, Broad about 23 - in terms of percentage of wickets taken though, Stokes wins hands down on tailenders) . So he is far more likely to get cheaper wickets at the end of an innings and be bowling to weaker batsman at the end.

One surprising stat is how few players Stokes get lbw.. only 4 in 37 innings.... which again shows how inaccurate he is. He never hits the stumps enough.... having done some quick maths(that might not be 100% accurate, but even with a sufficient give or take, show the point)..... Stokes has something like 75-80% of his wickets caught.... someone like Broad is 60-65%. Anderson 66-68%. Steyn again is up the 64% odd mark. A good bowler will get more people out lbw and bowled if he is consistently testing the defenses of a batsman.

I dont think there is much excuses or any other way to describe it. Stokes has not been a test class bowler so far in his career. He might fill highlight reels with plenty of play and miss style "unlucky" balls, but I am sure you could do that with most players. There is no intelligence to his bowling.

[sussexpob]

Its usually at this point that people talk of inexperience, etc. The truth is he has played a lot of cricket, a real load. Stokes has played 88 FC matches and 21 tests, Glenn McGrath only managed 185 playing to nearly 40 odd, so I am not buying this time argument.... In fact, Dale Steyn has only played 125 FC games in his career!!!!

Stokes is already nearly at that!