Ben Stokes

[Gingerfinch]

Also depends where Stokes bats.
if stokes is still a top 6 bat without still being consistent with the bat, will give opposition teams hope they can dismiss England cheaply.
if he a number 7 teams will be worried since he can win games with the bat and gives England 4 or 3 seam options every game and still play 5 bowlers.

Still got a long way to go, got huge potential.
Think he more of a bowler than a batsman, not sure he good enough to bat in the top 6.

He can afford to be a little bit inconsistent with Bairstow and Ali behind him. Of course he will need to chip in with a few wickets as well.

[sussexpob]

Yay.... after failing to make double figures in about 70% of his latest 15 innings, he slogs what is, lets be face it, a South African B attack for one innings and he is the son of god again.....

[Making_Splinters]

I don't think anyone is claiming that Sussex, and it's only just over 50% of the time in his last 15 innings that he has failed to reach double figures, no need for the hyperbole young man.

[sussexpob]

[quote="Making_Splinters"]I don't think anyone is claiming that Sussex, and it's only just over 50% of the time in his last 15 innings that he has failed to reach double figures, no need for the hyperbole young man.[/quote

The BBC quoted a stat on day one that he had failed in 69% of his last innings. I havent checked if it was true.

[Making_Splinters]

Oh if you count getting up to 20 then it is much higher, he's only done that 4 times in his last 15 innings including today.

If you compare Stokes to Flintoff at the same point in their careers at 20 tests, Flintoff averaged 20 with the bat and 46 with the ball compared to Stokes' 27 with the bat and 40 with the ball.

Stokes has shown a lot of promise and I think anyone without a predecided view point on Stokes would say he has played a few top class innings with the bat and few top class sessions with the ball but he needs to do that consistantly to be counted as a decent player.

Still interesting to see is doing better than Fred at the same point in their careers.

[Dr Cricket]

TBH Fred was very overrated as well.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Lots of people seem to underrate him now.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yay.... after failing to make double figures in about 70% of his latest 15 innings, he slogs what is, lets be face it, a South African B attack for one innings and he is the son of god again.....

It was in itself though, one hell of an innings.

It's a flat deck, but many worse attacks than that one have taken the field in the last 139 years.

And England were in a spot of bother when he came to the crease. 300 all out would have been some way under par.

But most of all, it was just a remarkable knock. And he needed it. It's been a while since his last influential score. Of course his effort today underlines his inconsistency... but it also emphasises what he is capable off.

[Dr Cricket]

Lots of people seem to underrate him now.

yeah think Flintoff was the odd cricketer.
was so brilliant for 2 years, brilliant bowler was probably england best bowler in those years.
his Stat are crap barring his golden years, injuries and his lifestyle didn't help either, was never the same cricketer after 2005 Ashes.

Was overrated though wouldn't class him as a great all rounder.

[Making_Splinters]

Flintoff at his best was one of the great allrounders to play the game. In the 4 year period from the start of 2003 to the end of 2007 he averaged 38 with the bat and 28 with the ball, so not just a 2 year spell.

He had a very slow start to his career when he didn't take his fitness or his cricket seriously, but even from the 2005 ashes to the end of his career he averaged 28 with the bat and 33 with the ball, which is more than decent and certainly not crap.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I know we both know Freddie's career well, and the extenuating reasons that he didn't achieve his best for longer. But it was a remarkable peak. I think also people tend to forget his ODI career, where he was a genuine top five bat, and one of the best bowlers in the world. He is (I think) the best limited overs cricketer England have ever had. In Tests, he was a huge part in giving England supporters of my generation, the best days of watching that they have ever had. Certainly the best since 81. Just because the peak was relatively brief (partly for reasons out of his hands) it can't be ignored that it was also magnificent. And the star quality/charisma he had matters too. As well as being a sportsman, Freddie was a performer.

[Dr Cricket]

He was a great player to watch.
but with the bat only performed in 03 and 04.
with the ball it was 03,04,05.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... e=allround

after 2006 he barely played.

Was a great in ODI though, but vastly overrated in Test matches.
Still a quality player, comparing him to I Pathan not a bad comparison.
And I doubt anyone would call him a great all rounder.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Flintoff at his best was one of the great allrounders to play the game. In the 4 year period from the start of 2003 to the end of 2007 he averaged 38 with the bat and 28 with the ball, so not just a 2 year spell.

He had a very slow start to his career when he didn't take his fitness or his cricket seriously, but even from the 2005 ashes to the end of his career he averaged 28 with the bat and 33 with the ball, which is more than decent and certainly not crap.

While Freddie had a pretty good 3/4 year span, you can pick out a period where he averaged 45 with the bat and 25 with the ball. That's what he could do- against tough opposition too. He was perhaps too big/heavy to be a top order batter, but he had a good method, and in India in 06, when I think he got to 50 about 4 or 5 times, he looked pretty classy, well coached. But I reckon the injuries stopped him from reaching his peak as a bat, he hardly played between Test innings. He was injured, or he was rushed back into the side. I think if he had played more, he would have been more consistent.

With the ball, Freddie was extremely unselfish. He bowled most of the attritional overs, and often stayed on just because the rest of the attack (after 06) ceased to function. If there was nothing in the pitch, Flintoff just upped his ration.

A fine slipper. But, with that X-factor in abundance that made watching him so enjoyable, and made his best days so memorable. I don't really like making provisos for why his stats weren't better anymore. He did plenty and he was there on some very special days.

[Dr Cricket]

Yeah flintoff always played for the team, remember him bowling loads of overs to win a test matches against Sri lanka at lords, took a lot out of him.

might explain why his bowling stats were not great, was england best and most tough bowler to face in the years I watched cricket.
wouldn't class him as a great all rounder though only had 2-3 series where he was a gun player, was unlucky with injuries.

[Arthur Crabtree]

He was a great player to watch.
but with the bat only performed in 03 and 04.
with the ball it was 03,04,05.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... e=allround

after 2006 he barely played.

Was a great in ODI though, but vastly overrated in Test matches.
Still a quality player, comparing him to I Pathan not a bad comparison.
And I doubt anyone would call him a great all rounder.

I don't think we're using the same measurements. I don't think any England player I've seen (I go back to 76) is a great player. England have had players who were briefly great, like Botham, Vaughan, Gooch- and I'd include Freddie in that group. And then there are players who consistently fell just short of the best, like Thorpe, KP, Boycott, Swann, Gower. If were looking for England players to compare against Lara, Richards and Marshall, you won't find any. These are all just England greats. Cricketing heros within the context of this one nation.

England's great players played in black and white.