AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

[Meteoric Rise]

I think the trap people can fall into when analysing cricket stats is taking too much notice of career averages to assess current ratings.

As an example, Stokes has played test cricket since 2013, debuting as a highly rated 23yo. After 13 matches he was averaging 48 with the ball with a SR of 75 - after 20 matches it was still 40 with the ball. After 20 matches he was averaging 28 with the bat.

His 53 matches from 2016 onwards (a 25yo) he has averaged 40.6 with the bat and 28.7 with the ball. This places him over his last 53 matches comfortably with the greatest all-rounders of all time. Now I accept if you take out a selection of performances from anyone’s averages (particularly the last 10 matches prior to retirement when they’ve likely been poor, and Stokes hasn’t had his career ending run off poor performances yet) most would improve statistically.

But 53 matches in all conditions across 6-years is a huge sample size, so to average 40/28 with bat and ball is extraordinary quality. If … and it’s a big IF …. he maintains those averages for another few years or even betters them, his career stats will sit comfortably in the top few batting all-rounders in the history of test cricket.

Time will tell …..


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It is fair to look at players records once they have adjusted to the level, matured and found their role. But then you also want to drill down a bit. Since the Boxing Day test in 2015, in the series in South Africa where Stokes came good, this is what he has done opponent by opponent:

Opponent	Runs	Bat Ave	Wickets	Bowl Ave
Australia	498	45	11	51
India	748	30	27	34
New Zealand	248	35	2	93
South Africa	1028	47	29	30
Pakistan	90	18	7	21
Sri Lanka	199	28	6	21
West Indies	777	60	28	21
Bangladesh	138	32	11	10

If you look at the top 4 there, who would have been the stronger batting teams, Stokes got 69 wickets in 36 matches at 36 average. Add Pakistan to the mix, his bowling average is 35 with 76 wickets from 39 matches. This would not get anyone selected as a specialist bowler.

Batting he was dismissed 65 times for around 2500 runs for an average around 38. If you add in his performances v the only other country with any real strength in that period - Pakistan - his batting average is 37 from 70 dismissals. This would be very borderline at best to get you selected as a specialist number 5 or 6 batsman.

Forget what Stokes has done v WI, SL and Bangladesh in that period, they are not competitive teams during the period in question.

So in the games that matter against the stronger 5 nations, through his peak years, he is a handy batting all-rounder, averaging 37 with the bat at number 5 and getting just under two wickets per match at 35 average as a useful 5th bowling option. Shane Watson wasn’t far short of that and there were repeated howls at several points of his career for his omission. In fact had Watson bowled in weaker attacks it is conceivable he would have more than matched Stokes 2 wickets per match at a mid 30’s average. Then there would be only a few points in batting average between them and Watson spent a fair bit of time opening the batting. Watson would never have been near Australia’s first picked player even at his peak. Stokes is a good test all-rounder, no more. He is nowhere near the level of the great all-rounders of the sport’s history.

 

[Seeds]

I agree to an extent but:

(a) Brownlow votes are not the only measure that can be used here - Mitchell and Black lead every metric available that you choose to name for the time period in question.
(b) People say they don't trust umpires to know which players are the best, etc but when you look at the all time leaders it's not filled with "what the?". It broadly correlates and even if they make the odd error for a game here or there, trends over a career will still prove to be accurate particularly here in a context where we are talking about more than double the amount of votes, not 10 or 15 votes here or there.
(c) "Voss was the heartbeat of those Lions teams that won 3 flags and 4 grand finals". Very important, true and would work in an argument against basically every player bar these two. I mean, Black was also a central figure and heart beat to 3 flags and 4 Grand Finals too. He was AA every flag year, won a Brownlow in a flag year, won a Norm Smith in a flag year and won 2 B&F's across the 3 flag years. He was as important as Voss was to their success. Meanwhile, Mitchell's team won 4 flags and played in 5 Grand Finals and he was their best player, winning more than twice as many B&F's as anyone else and was their best mid by a mile (heartbeat) and best finals player to boot. If anything, you have undermined Buckley by bringing the "heartbeat to success" into the argument.

Lead every metric? How about speed or being able to take an overhead contested mark or kicking a goal or applying defensive pressure. They are poor at all four of those metrics

 

[Seeds]

Yep, this is where views will vary in discussions of this nature.

Some will consider player's entire careers and therefore be correct when including Buckley/Voss ahead of Black/Mitchell/Fyfe, whilst others will only consider performances from 2000 onwards, and will be correct when assessing Black/Mitchell/Fyfe to be ahead of Voss/Buckley.

And some will look at consistency and some will look at peak performance. And everyone will use slightly different metrics.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Lead every metric? How about speed or being able to take an overhead contested mark or kicking a goal or applying defensive pressure. They are poor at all four of those metrics

Apologies, when I say metrics I mean measures of performance (Brownlow votes, Coaches votes, B&F's, etc) not things like speed, etc. which gives no genuine indication of performance (otherwise Gary Rohan would be one of the greatest players of all time and Diesel Williams one of the worst).

With that said, if your approach is to include the entirety of their careers then I have no problem with selections of Voss and Buckley in the side, as it comes down to preference and these 2 are amongst the best midfielders of all time (however, with this approach the team would need to be altered significantly I would think because suddenly the likes of Carey, Lockett, Matera and others who featured in the 00's but really dominated prior would come in to consideration?). If restricting to performances after 2000, then I believe the choice to be somewhat self-evident.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Apologies, when I say metrics I mean measures of performance (Brownlow votes, Coaches votes, B&F's, etc) not things like speed, etc. which gives no genuine indication of performance (otherwise Gary Rohan would be one of the greatest players of all time and Diesel Williams one of the worst).

Absolute kudos for including Diesel and The Grohan in the same sentence! Both played for my mob. I went into mourning when Williams left but celebrated like I had won Lotto when Rohan was palmed off to the Cats. Williams' ability to read the play and vision were remarkable.

One consistent attribute of all the players under discussion is they have/had a massive Footy IQ. Our eyes sometimes tell us a story that the metrics do not.

 

[Noidnadroj]

It is fair to look at players records once they have adjusted to the level, matured and found their role. But then you also want to drill down a bit. Since the Boxing Day test in 2015, in the series in South Africa where Stokes came good, this is what he has done opponent by opponent:

Opponent	Runs	Bat Ave	Wickets	Bowl Ave
Australia	498	45	11	51
India	748	30	27	34
New Zealand	248	35	2	93
South Africa	1028	47	29	30
Pakistan	90	18	7	21
Sri Lanka	199	28	6	21
West Indies	777	60	28	21
Bangladesh	138	32	11	10

If you look at the top 4 there, who would have been the stronger batting teams, Stokes got 69 wickets in 36 matches at 36 average. Add Pakistan to the mix, his bowling average is 35 with 76 wickets from 39 matches. This would not get anyone selected as a specialist bowler.

Batting he was dismissed 65 times for around 2500 runs for an average around 38. If you add in his performances v the only other country with any real strength in that period - Pakistan - his batting average is 37 from 70 dismissals. This would be very borderline at best to get you selected as a specialist number 5 or 6 batsman.

Forget what Stokes has done v WI, SL and Bangladesh in that period, they are not competitive teams during the period in question.

So in the games that matter against the stronger 5 nations, through his peak years, he is a handy batting all-rounder, averaging 37 with the bat at number 5 and getting just under two wickets per match at 35 average as a useful 5th bowling option. Shane Watson wasn’t far short of that and there were repeated howls at several points of his career for his omission. In fact had Watson bowled in weaker attacks it is conceivable he would have more than matched Stokes 2 wickets per match at a mid 30’s average. Then there would be only a few points in batting average between them and Watson spent a fair bit of time opening the batting. Watson would never have been near Australia’s first picked player even at his peak. Stokes is a good test all-rounder, no more. He is nowhere near the level of the great all-rounders of the sport’s history.

Sorry but now you are falling for the trap of removing poor opposition from Stokes, but not from those you are comparing him to. Poor opposition is often what helps boost the average of ALL players. So you can’t analyse Stokes performances against quality opposition only, it provides a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Botham for example dined out on some really tepid Aussie attacks in the 1980’s. Hadley had a field day against some woeful Aussie batting line-ups. Imran Khan and Kapil Dev didn’t play much against the dominant Aussie team from the mid 1990’s onwards. Any all-rounder from mid 1990’s onwards dodged the fearsome Windows bowling attack which would have put huge dents in anyone’s batting average …. and so on ….

So across 53 matches I think it’s reasonable to think he played a similar number of games against strong/weak opponents as most over history have done.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sorry but now you are falling for the trap of removing poor opposition from Stokes, but not from those you are comparing him to. Poor opposition is often what helps boost the average of ALL players. So you can’t analyse Stokes performances against quality opposition only, it provides a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Botham for example dined out on some really tepid Aussie attacks in the 1980’s. Hadley had a field day against some woeful Aussie batting line-ups. Imran Khan and Kapil Dev didn’t play much against the dominant Aussie team from the mid 1990’s onwards. Any all-rounder from mid 1990’s onwards dodged the fearsome Windows bowling attack which would have put huge dents in anyone’s batting average …. and so on ….

So across 53 matches I think it’s reasonable to think he played a similar number of games against strong/weak opponents as most over history have done.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I judge players on their performances v competitive opposition. In Stokes' case it shows he is not a great all rounder, merely a decent one. His batting is around the level of several great all rounders but he is a 5th bowler in the Shane Watson mould rather than being his team’s best or second best bowler ala Hadlee, Botham, Akram, Imran, Dev.

If you want to make the case regarding some other player being not as good as their overall averages suggest, then I would say actually make the case properly, show us the figures and tell us why you are excluding certain periods or opponents.

But in Stokes' case there is no escaping the fact he is a reasonable rather than champion bat who bowls about a 60% bowling load, because he is simply not up to being a frontline bowler. Even the figures you presented on him throughout his peak - with his weaker periods excluded - lend themselves to that assessment. He is 30yo, he didn’t play much test cricket as an immature cricketer, so his career has got to a point where his overall figures are roughly reflective of how good he has been. Good, but not great, it is as simple as that. No amount of commentary trying to turn him into a courageous fighter and modern day great all rounder is going to fool me, but you are entitled to your own view of him.

 

[Noidnadroj]

I judge players on their performances v competitive opposition. In Stokes' case it shows he is not a great all rounder, merely a decent one. His batting is around the level of several great all rounders but he is a 5th bowler in the Shane Watson mould rather than being his team’s best or second best bowler ala Hadlee, Botham, Akram, Imran, Dev.

If you want to make the case regarding some other player being not as good as their overall averages suggest, then I would say actually make the case properly, show us the figures and tell us why you are excluding certain periods or opponents.

But in Stokes' case there is no escaping the fact he is a reasonable rather than champion bat who bowls about a 60% bowling load, because he is simply not up to being a frontline bowler. Even the figures you presented on him throughout his peak - with his weaker periods excluded - lend themselves to that assessment. He is 30yo, he didn’t play much test cricket as an immature cricket, so his career has got to a point where his overall figures are roughly reflective of how good he has been. Good, but not great, it is as simple as that. No amount of commentary trying to turn him into a courageous fighter and modern day great all rounder is going to fool me, but you are entitled to your own view of him.

Ok… Ian Bothams record in all 20 test matches he played against the Windies from 1980-1991:
Batting average: 21.40 (zero hundreds)
Bowling average: 35.18

Against the minnows of the era NZ in 15 matches:
Batting average : 40.28 (3 hundreds)
Bowling average: 23.43

Flintoff played 15 tests against Australia: Batting / Bowling : 33.55 / 33.20

Kallis in 29 matches v Australia: Batting / Bowling: 41.22 / 37.56

V New Zealand in 18 matches : 61.72 / 34.33

I didn’t bother checking any more, as I’m sure history will tell us ‘most’ players get a nice average boost against inferior opposition which was my point.

Was Ian Botham just an ordinary all rounder because he was fairly abysmal against the best opposition? Of course not.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Ok… Ian Bothams record in all 20 test matches he played against the Windies from 1980-1991:
Batting average: 21.40 (zero hundreds)
Bowling average: 35.18

Against the minnows of the era NZ in 15 matches:
Batting average : 40.28 (3 hundreds)
Bowling average: 23.43

Flintoff played 15 tests against Australia: Batting / Bowling : 33.55 / 33.20

Kallis in 29 matches v Australia: Batting / Bowling: 41.22 / 37.56

V New Zealand in 18 matches : 61.72 / 34.33

I didn’t bother checking any more, as I’m sure history will tell us ‘most’ players get a nice average boost against inferior opposition which was my point.

Was Ian Botham just an ordinary all rounder because he was fairly abysmal against the best opposition? Of course not.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Hand picking the Botham record against what plenty of people think is the greatest team of all time does nothing to elevate Stokes’ bowling enough to make him a top class test all-rounder. Botham at his peak was a way better cricketer than Stokes at his peak. Botham’s record suffered a bit from playing well past his bowling peak. With modern conditioning Botham would probably have been a top class test bowler for about 12 years. Loads of players are better than Botham in the last 3rd of his career, but very few are in his league during his first 7-8 years.

Your assertion that most players, even great ones, elevate their records a bit against the weakest opponents is fair, but I would have thought that was understood.

You are missing one thing about Stokes. He is not a frontline bowler. He belongs to the batting all-rounder category. SO without being a great bat he is not going to be a great all-rounder. And he is not a great bat, merely a reasonable one.

At the top of that particular tree you have a guy called G Sobers. Probably an impossible standard to match but Stokes is not within the same universe.

Then a big step down from Sobers you have a guy like Kallis. Stokes is nowhere near as good a bat and not as good a bowler.

Then a decent step down from that you get the Tony Grieg’s of the cricket world. Shane Watson, there are probably a few others. Stokes is roughly on this sort of level amongst batting all-rounders.

But then there are two other types of all-rounders as well, the all rounders where it is not easy to say if they are better bats or bowlers in tests, like Jadeja, Klusener, Dev is probably one of these, Chris Cairns, Flintoff(probably slightly better bowler over his career.) Most of these types are as good or better all-rounders than Stokes because they are superior bowlers.

Then you get the great bowling all rounders, Hadlee, Imran, Botham, Keith Miller, Shaun Pollock, who are top class bowlers and more than useful bats. They are way more valuable than Stokes, because they allow you to play an extra batsman.

There are also loads of other players who bat about as well as Stokes bowls but are better bowlers than he is a bat. Ashwin, Benaud, Akram, Davidson are a few that spring to mind.

Stokes is probably barely better than team-mate Woakes in terms of all-rounder capabilities in test cricket.

 

[PhatBoy]

It is fair to look at players records once they have adjusted to the level, matured and found their role. But then you also want to drill down a bit. Since the Boxing Day test in 2015, in the series in South Africa where Stokes came good, this is what he has done opponent by opponent:

Opponent	Runs	Bat Ave	Wickets	Bowl Ave
Australia	498	45	11	51
India	748	30	27	34
New Zealand	248	35	2	93
South Africa	1028	47	29	30
Pakistan	90	18	7	21
Sri Lanka	199	28	6	21
West Indies	777	60	28	21
Bangladesh	138	32	11	10

If you look at the top 4 there, who would have been the stronger batting teams, Stokes got 69 wickets in 36 matches at 36 average. Add Pakistan to the mix, his bowling average is 35 with 76 wickets from 39 matches. This would not get anyone selected as a specialist bowler.

Batting he was dismissed 65 times for around 2500 runs for an average around 38. If you add in his performances v the only other country with any real strength in that period - Pakistan - his batting average is 37 from 70 dismissals. This would be very borderline at best to get you selected as a specialist number 5 or 6 batsman.

Forget what Stokes has done v WI, SL and Bangladesh in that period, they are not competitive teams during the period in question.

So in the games that matter against the stronger 5 nations, through his peak years, he is a handy batting all-rounder, averaging 37 with the bat at number 5 and getting just under two wickets per match at 35 average as a useful 5th bowling option. Shane Watson wasn’t far short of that and there were repeated howls at several points of his career for his omission. In fact had Watson bowled in weaker attacks it is conceivable he would have more than matched Stokes 2 wickets per match at a mid 30’s average. Then there would be only a few points in batting average between them and Watson spent a fair bit of time opening the batting. Watson would never have been near Australia’s first picked player even at his peak. Stokes is a good test all-rounder, no more. He is nowhere near the level of the great all-rounders of the sport’s history.

This is partly bias and part reality - I think in that period the West Indies have won two series against England at home and also won tests in two series away. So while relative to other teams against the west indies you could easily say they’re garbage - and we are - when stokes has played against them they’ve actually been good

 

[PhatBoy]

Hand picking the Botham record against what plenty of people think is the greatest team of all time does nothing to elevate Stokes’ bowling enough to make him a top class test all-rounder. Botham at his peak was a way better cricketer than Stokes at his peak. Botham’s record suffered a bit from playing well past his bowling peak. With modern conditioning Botham would probably have been a top class test bowler for about 12 years. Loads of players are better than Botham in the last 3rd of his career, but very few are in his league during his first 7-8 years.

Your assertion that most players, even great ones, elevate their records a bit against the weakest opponents is fair, but I would have thought that was understood.

You are missing one thing about Stokes. He is not a frontline bowler. He belongs to the batting all-rounder category. SO without being a great bat he is not going to be a great all-rounder. And he is not a great bat, merely a reasonable one.

At the top of that particular tree you have a guy called G Sobers. Probably an impossible standard to match but Stokes is not within the same universe.

Then a big step down from Sobers you have a guy like Kallis. Stokes is nowhere near as good a bat and not as good a bowler.

Then a decent step down from that you get the Tony Grieg’s of the cricket world. Shane Watson, there are probably a few others. Stokes is roughly on this sort of level amongst batting all-rounders.

But then there are two other types of all-rounders as well, the all rounders where it is not easy to say if they are better bats or bowlers in tests, like Jadeja, Klusener, Dev is probably one of these, Chris Cairns, Flintoff(probably slightly better bowler over his career.) Most of these types are as good or better all-rounders than Stokes because they are superior bowlers.

Then you get the great bowling all rounders, Hadlee, Imran, Botham, Keith Miller, Shaun Pollock, who are top class bowlers and more than useful bats. They are way more valuable than Stokes, because they allow you to play an extra batsman.

There are also loads of other players who bat about as well as Stokes bowls but are better bowlers than he is a bat. Ashwin, Benaud, Akram, Davidson are a few that spring to mind.

Stokes is probably barely better than team-mate Woakes in terms of all-rounder capabilities in test cricket.

This is garbage, incidentally.
Botham played in a weaker bowling side and a stronger batting side than Stokes.
As such his bowling was relied upon far more. How many times do you think Botham took the new ball in England where his bowling would be ideal? Lots, I’d wager, competing with only Bob Willis for wickets for a lot of it and basically a cavalcade of nobodies over the last 6-7 years of his career. Stokes in England? He’s lucky to get a bowl most of the time.
Meanwhile as a batsman Botham followed Gooch, Gower, Gatting (when he was decent), Allan Lamb, Geoff Boycott.
He hit half a dozen of his centuries in England against India/Pakistan. Run your eye over the attacks he scored off. Kapil Dev and in one innings Sarfraz is the only pace bowler of quality he faced across all six of those innings. His three centuries against New Zealand - yes they had Hadlee. Who else? Chatfield, Sneddon, Lance cairns. His last century in australia was against Hughes and Reid in their first year of test cricket. The rest of the attack was Chris and Greg Matthews and Steve Waugh.

He averaged 21 Against the West Indies. He averaged 28 against australia who for most of his career were the next best attack.
He averaged 35 with the ball against the West Indies.

I wouldn’t be so quick to just make a blanket statement about stokes and Botham without at leas doing some exploring first

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is partly bias and part reality - I think in that period the West Indies have won two series against England at home and also won tests in two series away. So while relative to other teams against the west indies you could easily say they’re garbage - and we are - when stokes has played against them they’ve actually been good

What you say is true regarding West Indies being competitive with England in the 122 matches Stokes has played against them, but that is because England have been dire.

West Indies have played 23 tests v NZ/Aus/Saf/India in that period for 19 losses and 4 draws. Those are not the figures of a true test level team. Whilst India and NZ have generally been historically strong throughout that period, Australia haven’t and South Africa have been relatively weak for them. Stokes’ performances against these WI teams don’t suddenly become more meritorious because the England teams he has played in against WI have been dire.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Hand picking the Botham record against what plenty of people think is the greatest team of all time does nothing to elevate Stokes’ bowling enough to make him a top class test all-rounder. Botham at his peak was a way better cricketer than Stokes at his peak. Botham’s record suffered a bit from playing well past his bowling peak. With modern conditioning Botham would probably have been a top class test bowler for about 12 years. Loads of players are better than Botham in the last 3rd of his career, but very few are in his league during his first 7-8 years.

Your assertion that most players, even great ones, elevate their records a bit against the weakest opponents is fair, but I would have thought that was understood.

You are missing one thing about Stokes. He is not a frontline bowler. He belongs to the batting all-rounder category. SO without being a great bat he is not going to be a great all-rounder. And he is not a great bat, merely a reasonable one.

At the top of that particular tree you have a guy called G Sobers. Probably an impossible standard to match but Stokes is not within the same universe.

Then a big step down from Sobers you have a guy like Kallis. Stokes is nowhere near as good a bat and not as good a bowler.

Then a decent step down from that you get the Tony Grieg’s of the cricket world. Shane Watson, there are probably a few others. Stokes is roughly on this sort of level amongst batting all-rounders.

But then there are two other types of all-rounders as well, the all rounders where it is not easy to say if they are better bats or bowlers in tests, like Jadeja, Klusener, Dev is probably one of these, Chris Cairns, Flintoff(probably slightly better bowler over his career.) Most of these types are as good or better all-rounders than Stokes because they are superior bowlers.

Then you get the great bowling all rounders, Hadlee, Imran, Botham, Keith Miller, Shaun Pollock, who are top class bowlers and more than useful bats. They are way more valuable than Stokes, because they allow you to play an extra batsman.

There are also loads of other players who bat about as well as Stokes bowls but are better bowlers than he is a bat. Ashwin, Benaud, Akram, Davidson are a few that spring to mind.

Stokes is probably barely better than team-mate Woakes in terms of all-rounder capabilities in test cricket.

No doubt Stokes is a ‘batting’ all-rounder. And no doubt he sits behind Sobers and Kallis in that category….. 2 of the greatest test cricketers in history.

But as a batting all-rounder Stokes is in the upper echelon. Even if he didn’t bowl, his record as a number 6 batsman is very good.

The fact he can play as a 4th seamer and is an outstanding fieldsman IMO makes him a top-class all-rounder.

You can remove averages against poor opponents and analyse only against Australia etc… but we can do that with all players to get the outcome we want to find.

I think the last 4-5 years of his career will decide if Stokes ends up being talked about with the very best all-rounders of all time or ends up in a bucket with the likes of Flintoff and Watson.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[melbournemartin]

Decent side, although I would have Cox just ahead of Gawn, same with Voss ahead of Dangerfield

I was about to argue for Gawn as a function of AA appearances but I was surprised to see Cox made six! I knew he was great but gee, six! Happy to keep him there... for now.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is garbage, incidentally.
Botham played in a weaker bowling side and a stronger batting side than Stokes.
As such his bowling was relied upon far more. How many times do you think Botham took the new ball in England where his bowling would be ideal? Lots, I’d wager, competing with only Bob Willis for wickets for a lot of it and basically a cavalcade of nobodies over the last 6-7 years of his career. Stokes in England? He’s lucky to get a bowl most of the time.
Meanwhile as a batsman Botham followed Gooch, Gower, Gatting (when he was decent), Allan Lamb, Geoff Boycott.
He hit half a dozen of his centuries in England against India/Pakistan. Run your eye over the attacks he scored off. Kapil Dev and in one innings Sarfraz is the only pace bowler of quality he faced across all six of those innings. His three centuries against New Zealand - yes they had Hadlee. Who else? Chatfield, Sneddon, Lance cairns. His last century in australia was against Hughes and Reid in their first year of test cricket. The rest of the attack was Chris and Greg Matthews and Steve Waugh.

He averaged 21 Against the West Indies. He averaged 28 against australia who for most of his career were the next best attack.
He averaged 35 with the ball against the West Indies.

I wouldn’t be so quick to just make a blanket statement about stokes and Botham without at leas doing some exploring first

As you will see below, the statement I bolded from your post is a bit wide of the mark.

I have explored just about every element of every major cricketer’s record on specialist cricket forums for years PB. Botham was a champion fast bowler until he went down hill physically, and after that he was a glorified hack. At his best he had pace, could swing the ball prodigiously both ways and had a great bouncer, combined with excellent control. He batted at 6 and higher 114 times throughout his career and 7 or lower on just 47 occasions, many of which would have been due to the use of nightwatchmen. This means he played almost always in attacks with 5 bowlers like Stokes has. But whereas Stokes in the clear 5th bowler in the current attack(which has never contained a bona fide champion test bowler,) Botham opened the bowling throughout his prime. If you want to compare Stokes with the later version of Botham, fine, Stokes is a better player. But as an all rounder you simply cannot compare any version of Stokes with Botham through his peak bowling years. Stokes may or may not be a superior bat to Botham, but if you are talking about the Botham of legend that people recall so fondly, Stokes’ best bowling is not in the same stratosphere as Botham's.

Also, the batting lineup you quoted that Botham played in, how many times did he bat in that specific line-up? He was skippered by Brearley and Fletcher in a third of his tests for a start. Other bats he played with who batted ahead of him sometimes or all the time, the list is near endless: Brearley, Randall, Greig, Woolmer, Miller, Knott, Roope, Radley, Wood, Alan Butcher, Willey, Larkins, Tavare, Parker, Rose, Athey, Roland Butcher, Fletcher, Cook, Broad, Robinson, Fairbrother, French, Moxon, Morris, Atherton, Robin Smith, Ramprakash, Stewart, Hick, Reeve, Fowler, Lloyd, Terry, David Smith, Slack, Curtis, Barnett, Atherton, Chris Smith.

Botham, in his 102 tests, never once played with the test batting line-up you quoted. The closest he came was 1-2 matches in 1985 I think where he played with all bar Boycott. Of the players you quoted Alan Lamb was not even a good test bat, averaging 36 over a very average test career. Gatting was not even that good. Gooch, Gower, Boycott were not test batting greats either, though all were very good test bats.

Beside Willis, Botham bowled in attacks with Hendricks, Underwood, Old, Lever, Dilley, Small, Fraser who were and are all seen as decent test bowlers. None of them were better than Botham at his best. Botham at his best, which would apply to about the first 5 years of his career, was England’s best bowler, and in fact would have been in the best 6-8 bowlers in the world at the time, a list otherwise dominated by West Indian pace bowlers, but also rightly including Hadlee, Lillee, Imran.

Botham played 56 of his 102 tests v West Indies and Australia. The only minnow he played against was Sri Lanka, in 3 tests. He played 8 home tests v NZ, 13 v Pakistan, and 7 v India. All of those teams were no pushovers in their home conditions(with home umpires.). Of his 13 home tests v Pak roughly half of those were against very strong Pakistan teams. Including some Australian teams weakened by World Series Cricket and the South African tours in the mid 80’s, I would say Botham played 30-35 tests you could term to be soft kills, but for many of those when he was well past his best.

Overall Botham is not an easy cricketer to compare others to, because he played the first half of his career at an extremely high level, and the second half of his career he was just an ordinary test cricketer.

I have no reason to be biased against Stokes. I have seen him from under 19’s upwards and seen loads of County level matches he played in on his way through to test cricket. He is a very good cricketer. But if we are talking great test all-rounders, then no. He is a roughly average test batsman(of those who win consistent selection) and just isn’t and never has been the level of bowler to justify the label of great all-rounder. He is a genuinely good batting all-rounder at test level, that is about where I would put him.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No doubt Stokes is a ‘batting’ all-rounder. And no doubt he sits behind Sobers and Kallis in that category….. 2 of the greatest test cricketers in history.

But as a batting all-rounder Stokes is in the upper echelon. Even if he didn’t bowl, his record as a number 6 batsman is very good.

The fact he can play as a 4th seamer and is an outstanding fieldsman IMO makes him a top-class all-rounder.

You can remove averages against poor opponents and analyse only against Australia etc… but we can do that with all players to get the outcome we want to find.

I think the last 4-5 years of his career will decide if Stokes ends up being talked about with the very best all-rounders of all time or ends up in a bucket with the likes of Flintoff and Watson.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I can see you are determined to maintain your illusion of Stokes as a great test all-rounder. In the end if you see him that way, then fine. I don’t. Remember though also, you also had a decent crack at removing items from his overall test record to show him in a better light. Fair enough imo, but you shouldn’t then be criticising me for de-selecting parts of his record to show his real level.

 

[PhatBoy]

As you will see below, the statement I bolded from your post is a bit wide of the mark.

I have explored just about every element of every major cricketer’s record on specialist cricket forums for years PB. Botham was a champion fast bowler until he went down hill physically, and after that he was a glorified hack. At his best he had pace, could swing the ball prodigiously both ways and had a great bouncer, combined with excellent control. He batted at 6 and higher 114 times throughout his career and 7 or lower on just 47 occasions, many of which would have been due to the use of nightwatchmen. This means he played almost always in attacks with 5 bowlers like Stokes has. But whereas Stokes in the clear 5th bowler in the current attack(which has never contained a bona fide champion test bowler,) Botham opened the bowling throughout his prime. If you want to compare Stokes with the later version of Botham, fine, Stokes is a better player. But as an all rounder you simply cannot compare any version of Stokes with Botham through his peak bowling years. Stokes may or may not be a superior bat to Botham, but if you are talking about the Botham of legend that people recall so fondly, Stokes’ best bowling is not in the same stratosphere as Botham's.

Also, the batting lineup you quoted that Botham played in, how many times did he bat in that specific line-up? He was skippered by Brearley and Fletcher in a third of his tests for a start. Other bats he played with who batted ahead of him sometimes or all the time, the list is near endless: Brearley, Randall, Greig, Woolmer, Miller, Knott, Roope, Radley, Wood, Alan Butcher, Willey, Larkins, Tavare, Parker, Rose, Athey, Roland Butcher, Fletcher, Cook, Broad, Robinson, Fairbrother, French, Moxon, Morris, Atherton, Robin Smith, Ramprakash, Stewart, Hick, Reeve, Fowler, Lloyd, Terry, David Smith, Slack, Curtis, Barnett, Atherton, Chris Smith.

Botham, in his 102 tests, never once played with the test batting line-up you quoted. The closest he came was 1-2 matches in 1985 I think where he played with all bar Boycott. Of the players you quoted Alan Lamb was not even a good test bat, averaging 36 over a very average test career. Gatting was not even that good. Gooch, Gower, Boycott were not test batting greats either, though all were very good test bats.

Beside Willis, Botham bowled in attacks with Hendricks, Underwood, Old, Lever, Dilley, Small, Fraser who were and are all seen as decent test bowlers. None of them were better than Botham at his best. Botham at his best, which would apply to about the first 5 years of his career, was England’s best bowler, and in fact would have been in the best 6-8 bowlers in the world at the time, a list otherwise dominated by West Indian pace bowlers, but also rightly including Hadlee, Lillee, Imran.

Botham played 56 of his 102 tests v West Indies and Australia. The only minnow he played against was Sri Lanka, in 3 tests. He played 8 home tests v NZ, 13 v Pakistan, and 7 v India. All of those teams were no pushovers in their home conditions(with home umpires.). Of his 13 home tests v Pak roughly half of those were against very strong Pakistan teams. Including some Australian teams weakened by World Series Cricket and the South African tours in the mid 80’s, I would say Botham played 30-35 tests you could term to be soft kills, but for many of those when he was well past his best.

Overall Botham is not an easy cricketer to compare others to, because he played the first half of his career at an extremely high level, and the second half of his career he was just an ordinary test cricketer.

I have no reason to be biased against Stokes. I have seen him from under 19’s upwards and seen loads of County level matches he played in on his way through to test cricket. He is a very good cricketer. But if we are talking great test all-rounders, then no. He is a roughly average test batsman(of those who win consistent selection) and just isn’t and never has been the level of bowler to justify the label of great all-rounder. He is a genuinely good batting all-rounder at test level, that is about where I would put him.

I’ve got no problem saying that Botham’s bowling stacks up against anyone. Because it does. But contextually speaking he quite simply was used as a frontline bowler in a nation where frontline seam bowlers prosper. Stokes is good enough to be a frontline bowler. He simply hasn’t ever been needed to be used in that way. Botham averaged 34 overs a test match. Stokes bowls about 21. Stokes has played noticeably more outside of England than in it.
Botham played 16 more tests in England than away from it.

Botham played 9 tests in Asia.
Stokes has played a quarter of his tests there.

I’m not saying you’ve not faniliarised yourself with players records and stats but again a dismissive ‘look at the numbers stokes is nowhere near as good’ is not a particularly reasonable way to assess them.

 

[Fadge]

Have I just walked into a Cricket forum?

 

[Noidnadroj]

It is fair to look at players records once they have adjusted to the level, matured and found their role. But then you also want to drill down a bit. Since the Boxing Day test in 2015, in the series in South Africa where Stokes came good, this is what he has done opponent by opponent:

Opponent	Runs	Bat Ave	Wickets	Bowl Ave
Australia	498	45	11	51
India	748	30	27	34
New Zealand	248	35	2	93
South Africa	1028	47	29	30
Pakistan	90	18	7	21
Sri Lanka	199	28	6	21
West Indies	777	60	28	21
Bangladesh	138	32	11	10

If you look at the top 4 there, who would have been the stronger batting teams, Stokes got 69 wickets in 36 matches at 36 average. Add Pakistan to the mix, his bowling average is 35 with 76 wickets from 39 matches. This would not get anyone selected as a specialist bowler.

Batting he was dismissed 65 times for around 2500 runs for an average around 38. If you add in his performances v the only other country with any real strength in that period - Pakistan - his batting average is 37 from 70 dismissals. This would be very borderline at best to get you selected as a specialist number 5 or 6 batsman.

Forget what Stokes has done v WI, SL and Bangladesh in that period, they are not competitive teams during the period in question.

So in the games that matter against the stronger 5 nations, through his peak years, he is a handy batting all-rounder, averaging 37 with the bat at number 5 and getting just under two wickets per match at 35 average as a useful 5th bowling option. Shane Watson wasn’t far short of that and there were repeated howls at several points of his career for his omission. In fact had Watson bowled in weaker attacks it is conceivable he would have more than matched Stokes 2 wickets per match at a mid 30’s average. Then there would be only a few points in batting average between them and Watson spent a fair bit of time opening the batting. Watson would never have been near Australia’s first picked player even at his peak. Stokes is a good test all-rounder, no more. He is nowhere near the level of the great all-rounders of the sport’s history.

A bit more digging:

Botham from 1977-1981:

44 matches.
215 wickets
49 strike rate
21.74 average
Batting average: 32.83

From 1982-1992:

58 matches
168 wickets
67 strike rate
36.91 average
Batting : 34.06

So for the majority of his career his bowling was not good enough to justify a position as a test bowler. But his bowling stats remained impressive as an all-rounder thanks to his amazing bowling stats in his first 5-years.

Imran Khan on the other hand:
1974-1981
36 matches
144 wickets at 28.34 and batting average of 24.82

1982-1991
52 matches
218 wickets at 19.16 and batting average of 51.34 … yes, 51.34!!

Richard Hadlee:
1973-1978
23 matches
89 wickets at 31.58 and batting average of 19.18

1979-1990
63 matches
342 wickets at 19.88 and batting average of 31.10

Flintoff:
1998-2002
21 matches
33 wickets at 47.15 and a batting average of 19.48

2003-2009
58 matches
193 wickets at 30.33 and batting average of 36.38

Sobers:
1954-1960:
34 matches
43 wickets at 47.25 and batting avg 61.54

1961-1974
59 matches
192 wickets at 31.07 and 55.67

Wasim Akram:
1985-1989
29 matches
94 wickets at 28.18 and batting avg 16.71

1990-2001:
75 matches
320 wickets at 22.28 and batting of 24.30

Shane Watson:
2005-2010
26 matches
42 wickets at 31 and batting average of 41.55

2011-2015
33 matches
33 wickets at 37.09 and batting average of 30.50

These stats go to show some players ‘ride’ their stats for a good portion of their career (Botham and Watson). Whilst most others start slow and build over time… particularly the bowling averages.

If Stokes plays another 4-5 years and ends up with 7,000+ test runs (top-50 all time) and 250+ wickets (top-50 all time) his place as an all-time great batting all rounder will be assured if his averages end up mid-high 30’s batting and low-mid 30’s bowling. Anyone with 250+ test wickets has to be classified as a very capable test match bowler in their own right, irrespective of batting exploits.






Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I’ve got no problem saying that Botham’s bowling stacks up against anyone. Because it does. But contextually speaking he quite simply was used as a frontline bowler in a nation where frontline seam bowlers prosper. Stokes is good enough to be a frontline bowler. He simply hasn’t ever been needed to be used in that way. Botham averaged 34 overs a test match. Stokes bowls about 21. Stokes has played noticeably more outside of England than in it.
Botham played 16 more tests in England than away from it.

Botham played 9 tests in Asia.
Stokes has played a quarter of his tests there.

I’m not saying you’ve not faniliarised yourself with players records and stats but again a dismissive ‘look at the numbers stokes is nowhere near as good’ is not a particularly reasonable way to assess them.

Botham was used as a frontline seamer because he was good, it is not like he was good because he was used as a frontline seamer.

Stokes in Asia(including UAE) - from 17 tests: has bowled 318 overs at 19 overs per test. He has 34 wickets for 931 runs at an average of 27 runs. He had the clear benefit of taking 16 wickets for 213 runs in series v sub standard batting line-ups in Bangladesh and SL on difficult batting pitches. He also got a good few cheap tail wickets in some declaration batting v India and Pakistan.

Botham played 9 tests in Asia, bowling 334 overs, taking 35 wickets for 921 runs at an average of 26. He had the benefit of a single test v a weak batting team when he took 3/65 v an infant Sri Lankan test team.

As we can see, Stokes playing “a quarter” of his tests in Asia v Botham playing less than 10% of his tests there means little when comparing their bowling because Botham bowled more than Stokes did in Asia, literally bowled more overs, and against a better group of batting teams. I am guessing in tougher conditions on the whole as well. Botham in his Asian matches had 3-4 matches where he bowled 30+ overs for 1-2 wickets on unresponsive roads with home umpires. Stokes has never suffered that. Even the likes of Dennis Lillee couldn’t thrive in those conditions.

So it just cannot be said that Stokes bowling figures have suffered from his matches in Asia, he has mainly been bowled to advantage there, and his bowling average in Asian teasts is below his career average as a result. Botham’s is too but that is because he turned in a massive match winning performance with the ball in his first test in India, taking 13 wickets for not many.

 

[PhatBoy]

Botham was used as a frontline seamer because he was good, it is not like he was good because he was used as a frontline seamer.

Stokes in Asia(including UAE) - from 17 tests: has bowled 318 overs at 19 overs per test. He has 34 wickets for 931 runs at an average of 27 runs. He had the clear benefit of taking 16 wickets for 213 runs in series v sub standard batting line-ups in Bangladesh and SL on difficult batting pitches. He also got a good few cheap tail wickets in some declaration batting v India and Pakistan.

Botham played 9 tests in Asia, bowling 334 overs, taking 35 wickets for 921 runs at an average of 26. He had the benefit of a single test v a weak batting team when he took 3/65 v an infant Sri Lankan test team.

As we can see, Stokes playing “a quarter” of his tests in Asia v Botham playing less than 10% of his tests there means little when comparing their bowling because Botham bowled more than Stokes did in Asia, literally bowled more overs, and against a better group of batting teams. I am guessing in tougher conditions on the whole as well. Botham in his Asian matches had 3-4 matches where he bowled 30+ overs for 1-2 wickets on unresponsive roads with home umpires. Stokes has never suffered that. Even the likes of Dennis Lillee couldn’t thrive in those conditions.

So it just cannot be said that Stokes bowling figures have suffered from his matches in Asia, he has mainly been bowled to advantage there, and his bowling average in Asian teasts is below his career average as a result. Botham’s is too but that is because he turned in a massive match winning performance with the ball in his first test in India, taking 13 wickets for not many.

Sri Lanka this millenium has never fielded a substandard HOME batting line up. Hence a team almost entirely made up of relative rookies took australia to town last time we toured there.

Yes as I said Botham was used as a frontline bowler because he was one. And they needed him. Stokes is good enough to be a frontline bowler as well. Even half fit in this current series, aside from wood in Brisbane he’s been the only English bowler to make austtalia look ‘uncomfortable.’ Robinson has bowled better but stokes has looked like he can hurry and hustle the Australian batsmen at times and that’s clearly with a lack of fitness.

He has spent his entire career alongside Anderson and Broad, with stints behind Robinson, Wood and Steven Finn, and at times Chris Woakes.

The new ball bowlers he’s played behind have no fewer than 1161 wickets between them. So no matter how good he is, he is never going to be used as a frontliner like Botham was. They needed Botham to be that, and to his credit he did it. So did Kapil Dev for India - they needed him to be not just a bitsa player, he had to be a frontline quick. England haven’t needed that and as a consequence stokes hasn’t become that. Anyone who’s watched some of his spells against SA, India, and Australia would easily recognise that he could be if it was necessary.

Jason Holder has a far better bowling record than Stokes. And I love Jason Holder don’t get me wrong. But the relative weakness of the West Indies and the fact that one of the strike bowlers he was bowling behind is unreliable in Shannon Gabriel, and that behind he, Roach and Holder there isn’t a lot of depth, it’s meant that Holder has had to become an unadulterated frontliner. And even in that weak side, usually protected by no runs whatsoever from their top order, Holder has built a formidable and respectable record.

Holder is close to my favourite cricketer. If I’m a captain and I can choose one of he or stokes to throw the ball to, unless it is an absolute Vernon Philander snooker table pitch, I give the ball to stokes first every time

 

[God Mode]

When did the domain name change to bigcricket.com?

 

[Noidnadroj]

When did the domain name change to bigcricket.com?

Around mid-Dec when footy gives us Jack rabbit to talk about …


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sri Lanka this millenium has never fielded a substandard HOME batting line up. Hence a team almost entirely made up of relative rookies took australia to town last time we toured there.

Yes as I said Botham was used as a frontline bowler because he was one. And they needed him. Stokes is good enough to be a frontline bowler as well. Even half fit in this current series, aside from wood in Brisbane he’s been the only English bowler to make austtalia look ‘uncomfortable.’ Robinson has bowled better but stokes has looked like he can hurry and hustle the Australian batsmen at times and that’s clearly with a lack of fitness.

He has spent his entire career alongside Anderson and Broad, with stints behind Robinson, Wood and Steven Finn, and at times Chris Woakes.

The new ball bowlers he’s played behind have no fewer than 1161 wickets between them. So no matter how good he is, he is never going to be used as a frontliner like Botham was. They needed Botham to be that, and to his credit he did it. So did Kapil Dev for India - they needed him to be not just a bitsa player, he had to be a frontline quick. England haven’t needed that and as a consequence stokes hasn’t become that. Anyone who’s watched some of his spells against SA, India, and Australia would easily recognise that he could be if it was necessary.

Jason Holder has a far better bowling record than Stokes. And I love Jason Holder don’t get me wrong. But the relative weakness of the West Indies and the fact that one of the strike bowlers he was bowling behind is unreliable in Shannon Gabriel, and that behind he, Roach and Holder there isn’t a lot of depth, it’s meant that Holder has had to become an unadulterated frontliner. And even in that weak side, usually protected by no runs whatsoever from their top order, Holder has built a formidable and respectable record.

Holder is close to my favourite cricketer. If I’m a captain and I can choose one of he or stokes to throw the ball to, unless it is an absolute Vernon Philander snooker table pitch, I give the ball to stokes first every time

You understand these things differently to the way I do PB. The way I see it, if Stokes was good enough to be a front line bowler, he would be exactly that right now. He does not sit behind any out and out champions in the bowling line-up. He bowls behind all the other bowlers because they are better bowlers than him, it is as simple as that. You would have to be a seriously weak test pace attack for Stokes to be one of your best two, thus justifying opening. If Stokes was a better bowler England would be compelled to bowl him a full load, they would win more matches that way. His overall record in terms of overs bowled per tests and wickets per tests reflects how good a bowler he is. His has a reasonable strike rate and a poorish economy rate and to some extent both those stats explain each other.

Holder is a very good test player. He is a bowling all-rounder really. He is a superior bowler to Stokes every day of the week so I have no idea why you’d be throwing the ball to Stokes over Holder. Maybe in some select situations but not overall. Holder bowls a full load reliably, strikes at a reasonable rate, and has an excellent economy rate reflecting his great control. He is short of champion bowler class but would find a role in the top 4 bowlers for a lot of current and historic test teams no problems. Stokes wouldn’t.

Noidnadroj if Stokes becomes something better than he is, then we can talk about it. From where I sit right now he has no greater prospects of improving his standing in the game than does any other 30yo test cricketer.

 

[Noidnadroj]

I can see you are determined to maintain your illusion of Stokes as a great test all-rounder. In the end if you see him that way, then fine. I don’t. Remember though also, you also had a decent crack at removing items from his overall test record to show him in a better light. Fair enough imo, but you shouldn’t then be criticising me for de-selecting parts of his record to show his real level.

Nah, but Botham was a great test cricketer for 5-years and a very average one for 10…. statistically anyway. Stokes was a below average cricketer for his first 3-years and has been excellent verging on ‘great’ for 5-years…. statistically speaking.

Which is why the next 4-5 years will decide his legacy. If he falls away he’ll end up ‘good’. If he retains what he’s done over the last 5-years he’ll end up ‘excellent’. If he improves any more he’ll end up great.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com