Ben Stokes

[Arthur Crabtree]

Wouldn't you have to know that he's bowling more at the tail to judge whether he has a greater opportunity against them- rather than him just proving expert at getting them out, which would be useful anyway. Against that, if he is getting to bowl at them more, he has the other disadvantages I mentioned.

[sussexpob]

Wouldn't you have to know that he's bowling more at the tail to judge whether he has a greater opportunity against them- rather than him just proving expert at getting them out, which would be useful anyway. Against that, if he is getting to bowl at them more, he has the other disadvantages I mentioned.

I think you are clutching at straws here Arthur because neither conclusions are flattering or help your argument. If he takes 40% of his wickets against tailenders, and he blasts them out, then one has to assume with his very poor overall bowling record that he is not merely bad at bowling to proper batsman, but very very bad. Say for instance half his wicket (which it nearly is, but it makes my maths easier) he blasts out for 20runs a piece against the tail ( and I am not so sure that 20 runs per tailender is actually at all that good, possibly very poor) then he gives every batsman above nine over a half century at his end before he gets them out. I am not sure that you can claim that being disadvantaged by not taking the new ball or only getting 3 overs less than your best bowler is grounds for being that poor. The better he is in comparison to bowling to tailenders, the less favourable he is against proper batters.

Also, assuming he does bowl more to tailenders (as the above example assumes he only is better at getting them out, because it is a fact he has the highest proportion of tailender wickets, this cannot be argued against), then I fail to see this as disadvantaged. We arent talking about wickets per test, this is not something I hold against him, but how much his wickets cost.

If he was always bowling to 8, 9, 10 and Jack with an old ball, I fail to see how this is "disadvantaged" compared to bowling at premier batsman with a new one. Dave Warner averages 51.... Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon have never scored more than 40 in any format of the game. I know who Id rather be bowling too.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I don't expect the result to be flattering. I wonder if it's just a case of the Ruud Gullit aphorism. What we're describing is the performance of (what is currently) the fourth seamer, who gets fourth seamer opportunities, and produces results commensurate with that. Or, nearly. He should be doing a bit more. If he had stats like A&B, he might be opening the bowling.

[Arthur Crabtree]

also maybe consider the disparity between his average, and his peak. Maybe if he always produced underwhelming performances, you might give him less of an opportunity. But, he has excelled at times, and it might be tempting o see it he can bring his game consistently up to his peak, rather than judge him on more on his failures.

[Dr Cricket]

his bowling isn't really a problem, yes it needs to get better to be a 3rd seam option, but as a 4th bowler he quite good, if he does need to improve then he needs to start watching kallis or speak to him, don't speak to flintoff or botham they won't really help since their were proper bowlers and were not doing the 4th bowling work load.

Stokes biggest problem is that he can't get test match players out, their so good that the good deliveries don't get wickets and their punish the bad deliveries.
Kallis in his last 8 years was essentially doing what Stokes did but used change of angles, variation in swing to keep batsman quiet and get the odd batsman out.
his wicket to get bell out in 2012 at oval was class, right now stokes can't take wicket like that.

4th bowling job is essentially keep things tight and get odd wicket and bowl to give the main bowlers rest.

Only issue with Stokes his is batting position he can not bat at top 6 unless he contributes with the bat consistently, He made for batting at 7 since he isn't really dictated by the match situation can do a Gilchrist.
in 6 he would need to play to the situation average of 20-30 won't win games or series and put england under pressure.

[Dr Cricket]

Anyway I don't wanna make that point again because I do like stokes and willing to give him this year or 5-6 test matches at 6 before I judge him at 6 again.

[sussexpob]

also maybe consider the disparity between his average, and his peak. Maybe if he always produced underwhelming performances, you might give him less of an opportunity. But, he has excelled at times, and it might be tempting o see it he can bring his game consistently up to his peak, rather than judge him on more on his failures.

Its a worthy point to make, but its not my personal way of looking at it. Id rather have a steady and reliable player to throw the ball to, then someone who will be inconsistent.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The vibe, then...?

[sussexpob]

I am also not savvy with this "4th seamer" definition. This is simply a nonsense in my view, a creation to fit a point. Stokes bowls only 3-4 overs per innings less than the new ball partnership, so the idea he is there for any other job than help bowl out the opposition is, for me, a very surprising point to make. I dont think there is any teams I remember that were really good and successful, and had a bloke who lasted long in the side bowling so poorly. The role doesnt exist.

If a team bats long, he will bowl 25-30 overs. He bowled 28 overs in Cape Town for instance. He regularly bowls 15-20 an innings in a standard length innings.

The only time he doesnt bowl a good amount of overs, is when the new ballers shred the batsman and he isnt needed.

[Arthur Crabtree]

No doubt, he needs to justify his position more than he is (though he has just scored 250...), but although he hasn't justified his selection as a bowler, it would be difficult to claim his bowling isn't actually useful. He's a handy player to throw the ball to compared with most part time bowlers. He has 5-fers, which weren't really freakish events. He's in as a batter. He's a handy fourth seamer, and seems to have the potential to be more than that, given his natural pace.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There is something a bit forced about the little spikes of press excitement, that greet the breaks in the disappointing lulls which tend to be indulged with silence. Like he's obviously a special talent after Cape Town (an innings where he could just hit through the ball with uncommon certainty) but very little was said after a dismal tour to Pakistan. Typical of how uncritical the press is. But, I stand by the stuff I've posted above, at least insomuch as it's what I think, rather than I'm sure I'm right...

Sorry to hear his it's-how-I-play line regarding his sledging.

[sussexpob]

No doubt, he needs to justify his position more than he is (though he has just scored 250...), but although he hasn't justified his selection as a bowler, it would be difficult to claim his bowling isn't actually useful. He's a handy player to throw the ball to compared with most part time bowlers. He has 5-fers, which weren't really freakish events. He's in as a batter. He's a handy fourth seamer, and seems to have the potential to be more than that, given his natural pace.

I seem to sense a change in the waves, partly because after the last test he hit a 250 (but certainly before that), partly because his bowling is clearly not good enough.... that he is there as a new categorisation of him as a batsman and part time bowler. A part time bowler does not bowl 30 overs per test on average, every test he plays. He bowls when a team is 300-3, or throws a couple of overs down before a new ball. Someone like Mark Waugh was a part timer, a person who bowled an average of 5 overs a test match. I am not accepting this idea that his current role in the team does not require him to bowl like a specialist, simply because he bowls as many overs as a specialist.

Its looking more and more like his batting will keep him in the team, but I find it hard to believe that if he is being pushed more into a part-time bowl, full time bat role, he will justify his position over the coming couple of years. He lacks technique to play against the moving ball, he has so far struggled very badly against spin too.

[sussexpob]

Sorry to hear his it's-how-I-play line regarding his sledging.

He isnt endearing as a personality, not in the slightest. His and Mark Wood's video blogs were enough to confirm both are complete and utter morons off the field. Its really hard to like him really. That personality goes two ways, so whether or not as a player it will help or hinder him is a "jury out" .... he seems not to thrive in it though, bowling in the Saffer innings as England started to make inroads and got a little light at the end of the tunnel, he lost a little control getting in the batsman face.

In this instance its clearly negative. He should be concentrating on beating his batsman with the ball...... but other times on a poor pitch with nothing happening, having some fire might make things happen.

[sussexpob]

I guess the bottom line Arthur..... do you think Stokes has enough quality to bat in the top 6 in the future if his bowling never gets better?

[shankycricket]

I guess the bottom line Arthur..... do you think Stokes has enough quality to bat in the top 6 in the future if his bowling never gets better?

More than Alex Hales does.