Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16th February 2020, 22:38   #321
ReyaJp
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
For me as far as game changers are concerned Stokes is better than Flintoff but not as good as Botham. I saw Botham as a youngster and he was mesmerising. Cricket's Roy of the Rovers. Bars emptied when he was batting and sometimes when he bowled as well.
Flintoff did it with bat and ball in 2005 against one of the all time great teams. Botham couldn't do it against the great WI team, Stokes doesn't have a team of that calibre to go up against.

Peak Flintoff is in a league of his own despite the other 2 having better overall careers.
ReyaJp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 07:27   #322
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 23,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
As a test player, fair enough. But Stokes already has a World Cup winners medal and his overall contribution might have already exceeded that of two others. Pietersen has a world t20 medal in a tournament he bossed.
I'm not trying to decry Stokes's success in any way, but if he were to go into a Bell like career decline from now on, or his latter career to end up ravaged by injury like Flintoff, we might end up with a different view of him compared to now. As I see it, he's only really hit his peak for the last year or so, after showing glimpses beforehand. Anderson and KP in particular excelled over many years, even if in Anderson's case that has mostly been in one format.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 08:54   #323
Sir Coolerking
Established International
 
Sir Coolerking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Berks
Team(s): England, Sussex, Portsmouth
Posts: 4,332
Cricinfo have a handy article on this:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...est-allrounder

Notable that Stokes already has one more Fivefer than Flintoff (but the pair are miles Botham in that regard) and has comfortably the best batting average (I expect that to continue to rise as well).

Botham was the best bowler, Stokes will end up being the best batsman.
Sir Coolerking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 09:51   #324
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 25,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post
Cricinfo have a handy article on this:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...est-allrounder

Notable that Stokes already has one more Fivefer than Flintoff (but the pair are miles Botham in that regard) and has comfortably the best batting average (I expect that to continue to rise as well).

Botham was the best bowler, Stokes will end up being the best batsman.
The criticism of Botham that he didn't really do the business against West Indies is reasonable, but then again Flintoff had a somewhat disappointing career record in both disciplines for a man of his ability.

It is reasonable of Ali to point out that we don't know how Stokes's test career will pan out, but he was a key member of a world cup winning team. Botham had a fine '92 world cup but was a bit of a shadow of the player he had been a decade before by that point (I do just about remember the middle part of his career!).
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 10:33   #325
Sir Coolerking
Established International
 
Sir Coolerking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Berks
Team(s): England, Sussex, Portsmouth
Posts: 4,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
The criticism of Botham that he didn't really do the business against West Indies is reasonable, but then again Flintoff had a somewhat disappointing career record in both disciplines for a man of his ability.

It is reasonable of Ali to point out that we don't know how Stokes's test career will pan out, but he was a key member of a world cup winning team. Botham had a fine '92 world cup but was a bit of a shadow of the player he had been a decade before by that point (I do just about remember the middle part of his career!).
I think part of the problem with the W Indies was that the team as a whole was just so much better than England's. Much like the Aussies in 90's. They had the best batsmen and bowlers and we just couldn't compete. One man can hardly make a difference against that.

Flintoff was lucky in that by 2005, the Aussies were just starting to creak and he also found himself with a decent team around him (which also explains his lack of Fivefers, the wickets were shared around).

It's slightly different for Stokes. There is no standout Test team at the mo.
Sir Coolerking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 13:15   #326
Aidan11
Harmisonesque
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere cold and wet
Posts: 42,120
I don't think any batsmen did well against the WIs team of that era. They were a class above everybody else.

Of course comparing players from different eras is always difficult simply because of the various changes over the years. We all have our favourites.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 13:21   #327
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 25,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan11 View Post
I don't think any batsmen did well against the WIs team of that era. They were a class above everybody else.

Of course comparing players from different eras is always difficult simply because of the various changes over the years. We all have our favourites.
Gower did well away from home, but not well at home. Robin Smith did so when he came into the side, but that was when they were on the downslope a little. Gooch did well against them too although he was banned from playing against them in 84. He didn't do well against them in 86 either but was pretty good against them otherwise.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 13:24   #328
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 23,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post
I think part of the problem with the W Indies was that the team as a whole was just so much better than England's. Much like the Aussies in 90's. They had the best batsmen and bowlers and we just couldn't compete. One man can hardly make a difference against that.

Flintoff was lucky in that by 2005, the Aussies were just starting to creak and he also found himself with a decent team around him (which also explains his lack of Fivefers, the wickets were shared around).

It's slightly different for Stokes. There is no standout Test team at the mo.
You could say Stokes was fortunate because he played in a home world cup at the peak of his powers alongside the best ODI batting lineup of all time. Oh, and the ball ricocheted off his bat for a boundary when he was diving in for a run.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 13:47   #329
oldandfat
International Material
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,355
Stokes would (and has been) selected purely as a batsman.
Botham pre injury was a great bowler - however, what number do you believe he would bat in this current era? I would guess 7 or 8 depending on the keeper and how you rate him.
Flintoff was capable of great performances, but was never really a great player?
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 14:11   #330
Sir Coolerking
Established International
 
Sir Coolerking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Berks
Team(s): England, Sussex, Portsmouth
Posts: 4,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
You could say Stokes was fortunate because he played in a home world cup at the peak of his powers alongside the best ODI batting lineup of all time. Oh, and the ball ricocheted off his bat for a boundary when he was diving in for a run.
Well at least he wasn't drunk on a pedalo in the World Cup.

Not sure about the best ODI batting line up ever, the Aussies in 2003 would surely be competitive.

Who is the better fielder? Stokes and Botham both take stunners, but Stokes in particular seems to drop a few too. I don't remember Flintoff dropping many at slip.
Sir Coolerking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 14:14   #331
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 23,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post
Well at least he wasn't drunk on a pedalo in the World Cup.

Not sure about the best ODI batting line up ever, the Aussies in 2003 would surely be competitive.

Who is the better fielder? Stokes and Botham both take stunners, but Stokes in particular seems to drop a few too. I don't remember Flintoff dropping many at slip.
I don't recall Flintoff taking many stunners but being consistently good at slip. Stokes is very good in the deep in limited overs matches, something I suspect Botham and Flintoff rarely had to do.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 16:52   #332
ReyaJp
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
Stokes would (and has been) selected purely as a batsman.
Botham pre injury was a great bowler - however, what number do you believe he would bat in this current era? I would guess 7 or 8 depending on the keeper and how you rate him.
Flintoff was capable of great performances, but was never really a great player?
Flintoff was probably the scariest bowler to face in the 00s. He hit the bat harder than just about any bowler in that era. Guys like Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist had nightmares about facing him.

He was also blockbuster with both bat and ball in odis. I can't think of a better genuine allrounder in odis. Had he managed to have a proper T20 career he would have dominated in that format with bat and ball.

Having said all that, fitness issues early on in his career and injuries towards the end probably meant he didn't quite have the career highlights he should.
ReyaJp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 19:32   #333
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 29,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Just wanted to put the question out there. Where does Stokes stand in terms of the best players of the last 20 years from an England perspective? The likes of Anderson, Cook and Pietersen would for me be the three who would be at the forefront of discussions, but what Stokes has done over the last year in particular is phenomenal. He is definitely the most important player in the current England squad in more than one format.

He has more than presentable records in test cricket in either discipline and a brilliant batting record in ODI cricket. His short form bowling is not so clever but as an impact cricketer, one who can change matches so spectacularly, might he have exceeded the above three as a test cricketer?

I would say Buttler and possibly Bairstow might reasonably be his peers as short form players, but even so that is hardly unfair when all have been on the fantastic journey of the ODI transformation of joke dinosaur cricket to the spectacular lineup that is such fun to watch.
Top 3 if we're talking all formats, alongside Pietersen and Flintoff.

Now I've a question for you: rank his game as a batsman and bowler (separately) across the three formats

e.g.

1. test batsman
2. ODI bowler
3. T20 bowler
4. ODI batsman

etc
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 19:46   #334
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 25,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Top 3 if we're talking all formats, alongside Pietersen and Flintoff.

Now I've a question for you: rank his game as a batsman and bowler (separately) across the three formats

e.g.

1. test batsman
2. ODI bowler
3. T20 bowler
4. ODI batsman

etc
Interesting question and one that could easily change in a yearís time but here goes. Donít rate his shorter form bowling although he can be an impact wicket taker on occasions.
1. ODI batsman
2. Test batsman
3. Test bowler
4. T20 batsman
5. ODI bowler
6. T20 bowler
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2020, 20:02   #335
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 11,810
With Flintoff, I was always frustrated that despite the fact that he was obviously one of our very best bowlers, he always had to play as one of five because of his injury record, and thus because he was also quite good at batting he would be the one to be placed at no. 6, even though his batting often didn't really merit such a position.

Stokes does merit a top 6 batting spot, but there have been the same stories about his fragility, and so England have always played him as one of five bowlers.

To me this means that in both cases, England have been unable to take full advantage of having such a fine all-rounder in the team. I think that Stokes has very often been a better bowler than the other non-opening seam-bowler who is picked alongside him; but nonetheless he is never picked as one of just three seamers.

That ship has probably sailed now, but as with Flintoff I have felt that Stokes's presence in the team has generally facilitated the selection of a no. 8 who is not a good enough bowler to be one of just four, and not a good enough batsman to be in the top six, and who soon enough is dropped in favour of some other player of approximately the same description.

I think that to take full advantage of having a brilliant all-rounder, you would generally pick an extra batsman.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2020, 09:13   #336
Sir Coolerking
Established International
 
Sir Coolerking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Berks
Team(s): England, Sussex, Portsmouth
Posts: 4,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post

I think that to take full advantage of having a brilliant all-rounder, you would generally pick an extra batsman.
I think that would depend on what their main strength is. For Stokes it is batting, therefore you require the extra bowler. When Broad, Bresnan and Swann played, we could have the extra batsman because their main strengths were bowlers (who could all bat more than usefully).
Sir Coolerking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2020, 10:05   #337
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 11,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post
I think that would depend on what their main strength is. For Stokes it is batting, therefore you require the extra bowler. When Broad, Bresnan and Swann played, we could have the extra batsman because their main strengths were bowlers (who could all bat more than usefully).
In the abstract, if you've got a player whom you could pick as a specialist batsman or as a specialist bowler, you should pick them as a specialist bowler, because then you get their batting for free and it will always count. Runs from the bowlers are added to the team score with the same value as runs from the batsmen, whereas by contrast you can't have your batsmen bowling except at times when your bowlers are not bowling but could be, and so the bowling contribution of the batsmen isn't a free gift in the same way as the batting contribution of the bowlers is. This is partly because there's no cap on the team's runs, but its wickets are capped at 20.

I agree that Stokes's main strength is batting, and so the situation I've sketched doesn't really apply here. We'll never know, but perhaps if he had been less injury prone in the earlier part of his career he would have developed differently. In any case, my main worry about Stokes is that if he is making a significant bowling contribution then it is difficult to replace him if he is injured and can't play. Ideally, if one of our best batsmen gets injured we would want to replace him with the next best available batsman. If instead we have to replace him with the next best available all-rounder, we are liable to miss his runs.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2020, 11:01   #338
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 25,780
I have often struggled with stokes as a one day batsman. He can get bogged down and let the rate get too high. We won the World Cup final because of buttler’s innings - he kept it ticking while stokes let the rate climb.

Eventually we won BUT it took some incredible luck. A really poor drop get stokes a life. Had this been taken people would have said “as he did at headingley stokes allowed the rate to get too high and put too much pressure on the bowlers” that is without us mentioning the deflection after he had hit a couple of bad deliveries to cover.

As it is he was man of the match. Had the catch been taken he would have been criticised.

Post hoc rationalisation is a wonderful thing.

I actually think we have serval better odi batsmen in our lineup - Roy, bairstow, Morgan, root and buttler.

Stokes is up there with root for the test side.

I am sure I will get pelters for this, but that is just how I feel. What I want him in my side? Of course. Brilliant player.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2020, 11:43   #339
oldandfat
International Material
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think that to take full advantage of having a brilliant all-rounder, you would generally pick an extra batsman.
I always thought that the big advantage was the fact that your could play a balanced 5 man attack?!?
oldandfat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2020, 12:15   #340
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 11,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
I always thought that the big advantage was the fact that your could play a balanced 5 man attack?!?
It could be, but rarely is. Instead we pick a fourth seamer.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:52.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Cricket247.org