AFL Team of the 21st Century (Rolling)

[PhatBoy]

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.

Sorry mate but he does. Yes you can poke holes in Anderson and Broad - they are not Dale Steyn and Glenn McGrath, that’s obvious - but to be a champion you don’t have to be as good as those two. They are champions.

He’s a better batsman than he is a bowler and the eye test can tell you that all in form, he’s the second best batsman England have at the moment. And they aren’t going to use their second best batsman as a frontline bowler when they already have a handful of those. If they had to though he could. Hence the amount of times that they have won one the back of a key contribution from him with the ball.

In wins he averages 23 with the ball and strikes at 45. In 11 wins he has taken either 4+ for the match, or 3+ in an innings. Having watched most of those matches, he’s done it by being the guy who doesn’t necessarily run through and opponent early: why would he, he’s a second change bowler or later. The volume of times Cook and Root have had nothing doing and given him the ball to break his back and break the back of the opposition when things aren’t happening though is why he’s a great cricketer. He’s a moments player, a spells player, a sessions player. And if he was batting 6/7 and bowling more I have absolutely no doubt he’s gonna produce a sub 30 average

 

[Noidnadroj]

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.

Not sure how you can say he may struggle to improve his standing in the game. If he ends up with 6,000 test runs and 200 test wickets, do you realise he’ll be the 3rd player in history to achieve that double after Sobers and Kallis? If he gets to 6,000/250 wickets him and Kallis will be a party of 2. If he gets to 6,000/300 (unlikely) he will be having a celebration by himself.

6,000/200 seems very realistic and Sobers and Kallis is pretty handy company. If those things could be achieved by average or only very good cricketers it would have happened more than twice.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sorry mate but he does. Yes you can poke holes in Anderson and Broad - they are not Dale Steyn and Glenn McGrath, that’s obvious - but to be a champion you don’t have to be as good as those two. They are champions.

He’s a better batsman than he is a bowler and the eye test can tell you that all in form, he’s the second best batsman England have at the moment. And they aren’t going to use their second best batsman as a frontline bowler when they already have a handful of those. If they had to though he could. Hence the amount of times that they have won one the back of a key contribution from him with the ball.

In wins he averages 23 with the ball and strikes at 45. In 11 wins he has taken either 4+ for the match, or 3+ in an innings. Having watched most of those matches, he’s done it by being the guy who doesn’t necessarily run through and opponent early: why would he, he’s a second change bowler or later. The volume of times Cook and Root have had nothing doing and given him the ball to break his back and break the back of the opposition when things aren’t happening though is why he’s a great cricketer. He’s a moments player, a spells player, a sessions player. And if he was batting 6/7 and bowling more I have absolutely no doubt he’s gonna produce a sub 30 average

I am not poking holes in Broad and Anderson by saying they are not champions. They have been very good and durable test bowlers, but overall, they are not world beaters and never have been. If it is so advantageous to be a new ball bowler in English conditions as you say then they definitely are not champions. There would be no bigger fan of Anderson than me as a test cricketer, I was championing his case as a quality test player when he was being lampooned all over cricket forums. He is a very genuine cricketer, but he is short of absolute top class when you consider all situations, all conditions. Australia regularly has 2-3 bowlers above Anderson’s level. And Anderson has been a better and more consistent bowler than Broad imo. They have played a million tests each because they play for a country that does not as a rule produce great fast bowlers.

There is a reason England since 2013 have an inferior test record to South Africa(under resourced, still dealing with player drain from positive discrimination racial issues), Australia, India, New Zealand and are only really around parity with other under resourced teams who are corrupted in certain ways in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. That reason is the English test players are not very good. Root is top class. Anderson, Broad, Stokes have been a clear level down from that, but nevertheless very good test cricketers. Other countries have better players and that is why they play better.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Not sure how you can say he may struggle to improve his standing in the game. If he ends up with 6,000 test runs and 200 test wickets, do you realise he’ll be the 3rd player in history to achieve that double after Sobers and Kallis? If he gets to 6,000/250 wickets him and Kallis will be a party of 2. If he gets to 6,000/300 (unlikely) he will be having a celebration by himself.

6,000/200 seems very realistic and Sobers and Kallis is pretty handy company. If those things could be achieved by average or only very good cricketers it would have happened more than twice.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You don’t sit above or even with someone based on your aggregates Noideanadroj otherwise Atherton is better than Bradman etc.

By the way I didn’t say Stokes may struggle to improve. I said I can’t see he has any better prospects of doing so than any other 30yo test player.

 

[PhatBoy]

I am not poking holes in Broad and Anderson by saying they are not champions. They have been very good and durable test bowlers, but overall, they are not world beaters and never have been. If it is so advantageous to be a new ball bowler in English conditions as you say then they definitely are not champions. There would be no bigger fan of Anderson than me as a test cricketer, I was championing his case as a quality test player when he was being lampooned all over cricket forums. He is a very genuine cricketer, but he is short of absolute top class when you consider all situations, all conditions. Australia regularly has 2-3 bowlers above Anderson’s level. And Anderson has been a better and more consistent bowler than Broad imo. They have played a million tests each because they play for a country that does not as a rule produce great fast bowlers.

There is a reason England since 2013 have an inferior test record to South Africa(under resourced, still dealing with player drain from positive discrimination racial issues), Australia, India, New Zealand and are only really around parity with other under resourced teams who are corrupted in certain ways in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. That reason is the English test players are not very good. Root is top class. Anderson, Broad, Stokes have been a clear level down from that, but nevertheless very good test cricketers. Other countries have better players and that is why they play better.

Sorry mate I can’t agree with that.

If every player in the world was at their peak and age was no factor at all I think Ben Stokes would be one of the first 3-4 players chosen along with Smith, Cummins, Root and Kohli. He’s not a step down from the best.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Sorry mate I can’t agree with that.

If every player in the world was at their peak and age was no factor at all I think Ben Stokes would be one of the first 3-4 players chosen along with Smith, Cummins, Root and Kohli. He’s not a step down from the best.

Jesus.

Kohli, Bumrah, Williamson, Azam, Shaheen Afridi, Rabada, Rashid Khan.

That is just the ones I would rate more valuable test cricketers than Stokes right now, without looking at loads of players who are around Stokes standard, Boult, Southee, Hazlewood, Starc, Ashwin to name a few that come quickly to mind. And leaving out players like Andre Russell and others of that ilk who if they focussed on test cricket would likely be very good. And also leaving aside all the youngsters tracking to be at least as good as Stokes….Cam Green, Finn Allen, and wicketkeeping all rounders like de Kock, Pant. And god knows how many others I haven’t even thought of.

You really rate Stokes highly though and nobody is going to shift that idea from your head, I can see that.

 

[PhatBoy]

Jesus.

Kohli, Bumrah, Williamson, Azam, Shaheen Afridi, Rabada, Rashid Khan.

That is just the ones I would rate more valuable test cricketers than Stokes right now, without looking at loads of players who are around Stokes standard, Boult, Southee, Hazlewood, Starc, Ashwin to name a few that come quickly to mind. And leaving out players like Andre Russell and others of that ilk who if they focussed on test cricket would likely be very good. And also leaving aside all the youngsters tracking to be at least as good as Stokes….Cam Green, Finn Allen, and wicketkeeping all rounders like de Kock, Pant. And god knows how many others I haven’t even thought of.

You really rate Stokes highly though and nobody is going to shift that idea from your head, I can see that.

I know you know your cricket mate but even dropping names like rashid khan and shaheen afridi into that mix kills your argument. They’ve proven nothing other than that they have talent

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I know you know your cricket mate but even dropping names like rashid khan and shaheen afridi into that mix kills your argument. They’ve proven nothing other than that they have talent

Yep, except they are achieving more at the start of their careers in test cricket than Stokes is at the peak of his career….

 

[PhatBoy]

Yep, except they are achieving more at the start of their careers in test cricket than Stokes is at the peak of his career….

Right, demonstrated by Afridi’s impact with the ball here two summers ago and Rashid khan’s career

And rashid khan’s 5 wickets at 60 against anyone other than Ireland, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Come on mate.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Right, demonstrated by Afridi’s impact with the ball here two summers ago and Rashid khan’s career

And rashid khan’s 5 wickets at 60 against anyone other than Ireland, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Come on mate.

Fair enough you can leave Rashid Khan out then. I think we can impute from other performances we have seen from him that he would be a tremendous test cricketer, it definitely wouldn’t be fun for even the very best bats facing him where conditions were in his favour. I would think if he plays a decent amount of test cricket he will put a bigger stamp on the sport than Stokes has.

Afridi is claimed to be 21yo. If that is actually correct then what he has achieved to date is amazing and he really stood out in the recent T20WC as a clear cut above other new ball bowlers. I think Rashid Khan is claimed to be barely older than that.

Nevertheless, I can see how people can take the view Stokes is a better test cricketer than those two right now, but not the rest, they operate at historic champion class levels, but Stokes does not.

 

[PhatBoy]

Fair enough you can leave Rashid Khan out then. I think we can impute from other performances we have seen from him that he would be a tremendous test cricketer, it definitely wouldn’t be fun for even the very best bats facing him where conditions were in his favour. I would think if he plays a decent amount of test cricket he will put a bigger stamp on the sport than Stokes has.

Afridi is claimed to be 21yo. If that is actually correct then what he has achieved to date is amazing and he really stood out in the recent T20WC as a clear cut above other new ball bowlers. I think Rashid Khan is claimed to be barely older than that.

Nevertheless, I can see how people can take the view Stokes is a better test cricketer than those two right now, but not the rest, they operate at historic champion class levels, but Stokes does not.

Azam doesn’t either. He averages 37 when not playing test cricket in Pakistan.

Williamson has holes in his figures too. It’s nowhere near as black and white as is being made out. They can do whatever they like in t20 or one day cricket

 

[M Malice]

Sorry to be so blunt but you guys have gone troppo, no way blokes like Stokes, Kohli, Bumrah, Williamson make the AFL team of the century.

 

[craffles]

The **** is going on here? Came in to talk about the severe lack of love for small forwards like Milne & Betts and people are debating Rashid Khan? Really?

 

[Noidnadroj]

You don’t sit above or even with someone based on your aggregates Noideanadroj otherwise Atherton is better than Bradman etc.

By the way I didn’t say Stokes may struggle to improve. I said I can’t see he has any better prospects of doing so than any other 30yo test player.

But Atherton has not achieved anything that 50 other batsmen have done. Cricket stats in gauging performance are a combination of aggregates and averages. Adam Voges averages 60+ for heaven’s sake …. because he played 20 tests he’s included in most stats analysis and it does my head in …..

The reason 6000/200 has only been done twice is because for a bowler to be good enough to take 200 wickets it clearly requires them to bowl loads of overs and have a decent strike rate, thus precluding them from being a top-6 bat which you need to be to make 6,000 runs.

Or the other side of the coin, for a player to make 6,000 runs it means they must bat top-5 or top-6, thus needing to bat for long periods and therefore being very difficult to back up and bowl enough to get to 200 wickets.

So if … and it remains a big if …. Stokes gets to 6,000/200, then history tells you it’s almost impossible to do. None of the great bowling all-rounders like Hadlee, Akram or Pollock were anywhere near good enough to bat 5-6.

For a game built around scoring runs and taking wickets, 6,000/200 will place Stokes near the top of the tree as an all-rounder. Saying it doesn’t it like saying someone kicking 1,000 goals in AFL is not that great if they have to play loads of games to achieve it. A sporting achievement almost no-one has done surely must be heralded as great..??

Another little fact …. of the players to score 1,000 test runs and take 100 test wickets, only 6 have made 10+ test centuries. Stokes is one of them.

Let’s be clear …. I don’t rate Stokes as a great all-rounder yet. If he succumbs to injury and does not much more he’ll sit mid-table with the Flintoff and Watson’s of the world. But if he plays 4-5 more years at a similar level to his last 5 then he’ll elevate above most all-rounders we’ve discussed … not all….but most.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[HairyO]

The fu** is going on here? Came in to talk about the severe lack of love for small forwards like Milne & Betts and people are debating Rashid Khan? Really?

Breust over Botham for the FP which Betts doesnt want.

Botham over Buddy for meat pie consumption. Just.

 

[M Malice]

The locks in my side would be > Khabib Nurmagomedov, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Lebron James, Lionel Messi and Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[Seeds]

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.

Footy iq is a metric.

 

[Seeds]

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.

asia was quite poor at cricket during bothams era with pakistan the exception.

modern players dont have a all conquering west indies to play against. Cricket is far poorer with their absense.

 

[PhatBoy]

asia was quite poor at cricket during bothams era with pakistan the exception.

modern players dont have a all conquering west indies to play against. Cricket is far poorer with their absense.

They don’t, and I agree as a West Indies fan it’s way shitter. But India are stronger now than they were then as well, South Africa during stokes’ career for the first four years of it were in a patch that mathematically made them
The third best dynasty of all time - SA didn’t actually exist during Botham’s test career

 

[Meteoric Rise]

asia was quite poor at cricket during bothams era with pakistan the exception.

modern players dont have a all conquering west indies to play against. Cricket is far poorer with their absense.

India won a WC in 1983. They were not the powerhouse of today in Botham’s time but they were not minnows. Pakistan were genuinely strong throughout most of Botham’s career. And the only other Aisan team Botham played against were 3 tests v Sri Lanka, who were minnows, much like Bangladesh thorughout Stokes’ career. But both WI and SL and to some extent South Africa have been severely weakened in the test arena throughout all or in some cases parts of Stokes’ career by issues nothing to do with producing insufficient talent.

The West Indies of Botham’s era was like a talented bunch of cricketers from today with modern conditioning techniques transported back into the 70’s and 80’s with very predictable results.

 

[Seeds]

They don’t, and I agree as a West Indies fan it’s way shitter. But India are stronger now than they were then as well, South Africa during stokes’ career for the first four years of it were in a patch that mathematically made them
The third best dynasty of all time - SA didn’t actually exist during Botham’s test career

True there are more top quality teams now.

There just isnt that uber team like the west indies.

probably evens itself out a lot.

 

[curnow inferno]

CHANGES AT END OF SEASON 2022:
IN: STEWART
OUT: MCGOVERN

FB:	C.ENRIGHT (GEEL)	M.SCARLETT (GEEL)	T.STEWART* (GEEL)
HB:	A.MCLEOD (ADEL)	A.RANCE (RICH)	L.HODGE (HAW) (vc)
C:	N.BUCKLEY (COLL)	M.VOSS (BRIS) (c)	B.COUSINS (WC/RICH)
HF:	P.DANGERFIELD* (ADEL/GEEL)	N.RIEWOLDT (STK)	D.MARTIN* (RICH)
FF:	L.FRANKLIN* (HAW/SYD)	M.LLOYD (ESS)	J.AKERMANIS (BRIS/WB)
RR:	M.GAWN* (MELB)	C.JUDD (WC/CARL)	G.ABLETT* (GEEL/GC)
INT:	A.GOODES (SYD)	N.FYFE* (FREM)	S.PENDLEBURY* (COLL) - D.SWAN (COLL)
COACH:	ALASTAIR CLARKSON (HAW)

I can't see anyone else from current crop of players breaking in for a few more years yet now.

 

[PhatBoy]

CHANGES AT END OF SEASON 2022:
IN: STEWART
OUT: MCGOVERN

FB:	C.ENRIGHT (GEEL)	M.SCARLETT (GEEL)	T.STEWART* (GEEL)
HB:	A.MCLEOD (ADEL)	A.RANCE (RICH)	L.HODGE (HAW) (vc)
C:	N.BUCKLEY (COLL)	M.VOSS (BRIS) (c)	B.COUSINS (WC/RICH)
HF:	P.DANGERFIELD* (ADEL/GEEL)	N.RIEWOLDT (STK)	D.MARTIN* (RICH)
FF:	L.FRANKLIN* (HAW/SYD)	M.LLOYD (ESS)	J.AKERMANIS (BRIS/WB)
RR:	M.GAWN* (MELB)	C.JUDD (WC/CARL)	G.ABLETT* (GEEL/GC)
INT:	A.GOODES (SYD)	N.FYFE* (FREM)	S.PENDLEBURY* (COLL) - D.SWAN (COLL)
COACH:	ALASTAIR CLARKSON (HAW)

I can't see anyone else from current crop of players breaking in for a few more years yet now.

Not saying he should be in the side and yes obviously it’s drowning in bias but I believe after this year - a third flag and a fifth all Australian nod - you could make an argument at the very least that Hawkins could be in the mix ahead of Riewoldt. I think NR is the best forward this century aside from Buddy but I don’t think the gap to those I believe are the next best (Pavlich and Hawkins) is very big

 

[M Malice]

CHANGES AT END OF SEASON 2022:
IN: STEWART
OUT: MCGOVERN

FB:	C.ENRIGHT (GEEL)	M.SCARLETT (GEEL)	T.STEWART* (GEEL)
HB:	A.MCLEOD (ADEL)	A.RANCE (RICH)	L.HODGE (HAW) (vc)
C:	N.BUCKLEY (COLL)	M.VOSS (BRIS) (c)	B.COUSINS (WC/RICH)
HF:	P.DANGERFIELD* (ADEL/GEEL)	N.RIEWOLDT (STK)	D.MARTIN* (RICH)
FF:	L.FRANKLIN* (HAW/SYD)	M.LLOYD (ESS)	J.AKERMANIS (BRIS/WB)
RR:	M.GAWN* (MELB)	C.JUDD (WC/CARL)	G.ABLETT* (GEEL/GC)
INT:	A.GOODES (SYD)	N.FYFE* (FREM)	S.PENDLEBURY* (COLL) - D.SWAN (COLL)
COACH:	ALASTAIR CLARKSON (HAW)

I can't see anyone else from current crop of players breaking in for a few more years yet now.

Exceptional side, the only one I can see who could go in would be Simon Black for Dane Swan.

 

[PhatBoy]

Also I still rate Cox as a better ruckman than Gawn