Ben Stokes

[meninblue]

Dismissed the best Kiwi batsman (Kane) and another good batsman (Big Mac).

193 runs with the bat and 2 wickets is a very good match.

[sussexpob]

Dismissed the best Kiwi batsman (Kane) and another good batsman (Big Mac).

193 runs with the bat and 2 wickets is a very good match.

The exception does not make the rule

[captaincolly]

Thing with Stokes is that FC average isn't remotely representative of his ability-when he started playing half of the games were on the notoriously tricky Riverside pitch and he's barely played for Durham since the pitches have gotten better. He's also had a couple of big injuries that hampered his progress-the self inflicted broken hand but also a very serious finger injury that kept him out of action for a while a few seasons ago. If I remember rightly he was also out for a while with an ankle injury.

At 23 he's far from the finished article but is much more than just a hard hitting batsmen-he has a very solid technique and isn't a slogger. Two county innings last year showed his ability to adapt-semifinal of the one day cup where - in bowler friendly conditions - he batted very sensibly early on taking few risks and then once set he destroyed the bowling attack but the shots were all clean hits and he made 164 from 113 balls.

Then in the final at Lords conditions were even more in favour of the bowlers and when he came in Durham were struggling chasing a modest score-this time he played a very patient innings, 38 not out from 59 balls in a 3 wicket win.

So far in his international career he's been unlucky as a bowler-he bowled very well in the West Indies with little reward and the one period in his international career where he really struggled ( last summer) was batting in an unfamiliar position when he was also just out of form and rhythm.

All a matter of opinion ( and obviously I'm biased) but he looks the part as a top 6 test batsman to me and if you add to that his ability to bowl at 90mph he could well develop into a seriously great international cricketer. He might not do it but the signs so far have been overwhelmingly positive imo.

[Durhamfootman]

I think that he's a load of rubbish and should be sent back to his county to work on his technique!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Or Yorkshire...

[captaincolly]

I think that he's a load of rubbish and should be sent back to his county to work on his technique!

Indeed. Stokes & Woody ( and the horse) should be sent back to Durham immediately!

[meninblue]

Dismissed the best Kiwi batsman (Kane) and another good batsman (Big Mac).

193 runs with the bat and 2 wickets is a very good match.

The exception does not make the rule

In 18 innings (10 tests) that he has batted he averages 36 at SR of 64. and has two test tons.
Also in 20 innings (10 tests) that he has bowled he has 28 wickets.

So clearly he is not a flop as he gives 36 runs and almost 3 wickets per test. And this is at a time when he is making first move into international cricket. With experience there is a chance that he will give better returns overall.

Any England all rounders in past 2 decades who had that average at that SR and took almost 3 wickets per test

[sussexpob]

Any England all rounders in past 2 decades who had that average at that SR and took almost 3 wickets per test

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling

Out of all the England bowlers to take that many wickets since 1995, Stokes has the second worst average in that time.

Out of 88 bowlers in that time, he has overall the 52nd worst average..... only 13 bowlers behind him in that list were considered proper bowlers or allrounders bowlers, others are batsman who (like Hussain and Trescothick) bowled 20 overs in 100 tests, so are hardly includable, and only Ashley Giles and Paul Collingwood behind him have bowled as many test balls (with one a clear batsman/ part timer).

[meninblue]

Any England all rounders in past 2 decades who had that average at that SR and took almost 3 wickets per test

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=bowling

Out of all the England bowlers to take that many wickets since 1995, Stokes has the second worst average in that time.

Out of 88 bowlers in that time, he has overall the 52nd worst average..... only 13 bowlers behind him in that list were considered proper bowlers or allrounders bowlers, others are batsman who (like Hussain and Trescothick) bowled 20 overs in 100 tests, so are hardly includable, and only Ashley Giles and Paul Collingwood behind him have bowled as many test balls (with one a clear batsman/ part timer).

Thanks for stats but without stats also i am aware that Specialist bowlers will obviously have better wickets per test and better bowling SR than him. I was interested in knowing all rounders for England in last 2 decades who had average of 36 @ SR 64 with bat and 3 wickets per test.

[Gingerfinch]

Stokes is young and a little inconsistent. Banding stats around that don't work in his favour, is pointless at this stage.

[sussexpob]

Thanks for stats but without stats also i am aware that Specialist bowlers will obviously have better wickets per test and better bowling SR than him. I was interested in knowing all rounders for England in last 2 decades who had average of 36 @ SR 64 with bat and 3 wickets per test.

How is that relevant? The amount of wickets per test is a meaningless stat, if he took all 20 bowling at both ends, England would lose every game using average formula for runs scored per test, by 140 runs assuming he bowled as well as he has. His bowling is under par, so the more wickets he takes, the more he bowls.... not sure the net effect is positive.

To answer your question directly, I would hazard a guess that Flintoff did it, and that's it. But that is not a mark of their being no one, put simply, an allrounder bowling at 40 per wicket would not have got a test pick over 10 matches in most teams, especially before Flintoff took the role.

[Aidan11]

If he keeps doing what he did in the Lord's test he will be a good entertainer.

That's what the punters want.

[sussexpob]

Another thing is, what in real terms Adi does his stats mean? So he bats better than others, but at what costs?

So you say he takes 3 wickets a test, but takes them at a higher cost than anyone else. Every match, he is adding on about 11 runs x 3, or 33 runs per test....16.5 runs per innings.

So, Stuart Broad's bowling is so much better, that he is worth an average of 39 with the bat if we were to factor up what Broad's bowling means to their net effect to the team.

In essence, Broad is a better allrounder than Stokes.....

Moeen Ali has about the same runs, more wickets per test at 12 average less than Stokes.... so that makes Stokes the third best allrounder in the team.

Graeme Swann factoring his better bowling into his batting would be a better all rounder.

[meninblue]

Thanks for stats but without stats also i am aware that Specialist bowlers will obviously have better wickets per test and better bowling SR than him. I was interested in knowing all rounders for England in last 2 decades who had average of 36 @ SR 64 with bat and 3 wickets per test.

How is that relevant? The amount of wickets per test is a meaningless stat, if he took all 20 bowling at both ends, England would lose every game using average formula for runs scored per test, by 140 runs assuming he bowled as well as he has. His bowling is under par, so the more wickets he takes, the more he bowls.... not sure the net effect is positive.

To answer your question directly, I would hazard a guess that Flintoff did it, and that's it. But that is not a mark of their being no one, put simply, an allrounder bowling at 40 per wicket would not have got a test pick over 10 matches in most teams, especially before Flintoff took the role.

He contributes much much better with bat than specialist bowlers. So his runs have to be weighed in. They cannot be ignored at all. Also he has taken 5 fers on two ocassions iirc. So he is not someone who is only used to rotate the main bowlers by helping them change ends or help them relax by bowling just one spell or say 5 odd overs per innings. 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. He is being developed as an all rounder imo rather than a specialist batsman or a specialist bowler. And to me the runs he has scored and wickets he has taken until now in such a litlle test career, he has done okay . And as you said only Flintoff had similar stats albeit in a long run. We cannot compare them as Flintoff managed to keep those stas for many tests, but atleast Ben has been able to match that in whatever opportunity he has got. So he deserves to be developed as all rounder as he is on par with the best England have produced in last 2 decades having multiple skills like Flintoff. Comparing Flintoff and Ben with specialist batsmen or specialist bowlers will show they are doing badly. But when we look at their talent as allrounders then only we are able to assign appropriate value to their multiple skills.

[meninblue]

Another thing is, what in real terms Adi does his stats mean? So he bats better than others, but at what costs?

So you say he takes 3 wickets a test, but takes them at a higher cost than anyone else. Every match, he is adding on about 11 runs x 3, or 33 runs per test....16.5 runs per innings.

So, Stuart Broad's bowling is so much better, that he is worth an average of 39 with the bat if we were to factor up what Broad's bowling means to their net effect to the team.

In essence, Broad is a better allrounder than Stokes.....

Moeen Ali has about the same runs, more wickets per test at 12 average less than Stokes.... so that makes Stokes the third best allrounder in the team.

Graeme Swann factoring his better bowling into his batting would be a better all rounder.

His batting stat is significant yesterday also. 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. Otherwise New Zealand would not have even got to bat more than one session if someone else or Ben himself had scored 200 runs in 450 balls. Cook, Joe also scored runs, but he scored runs as well as gifted England almost two session out of nowhere. Those innings had a terrific impact which was not at all expected by anyone probably.

All rounders will have the ability to score enough runs like specialist batsmen or take 5 fers like specialist bowlers in some matches. Ofcourse they not being specialists they will fail in one or both skills in remaining matches, which is fine as specialists to even fail to cross zero runs or zero wickets in some matches. So it should not be a big issue when multi skilled payers flop as well in some matches.


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.