Does Ben Stokes seem better player just because other team members are mediocre in England test team?

[Trichromatic]

Batting averge of 35. He is better than others, but just an average batsman.

 

Bowling wise he is 5th bowler without much impact.

 

Rarely performs anything of note in away matches.

[Trichromatic]

Averages 19 with bat and 40 with ball in last 10 matches.

[Majestic]

What are his Asia stats?

[Texan]

If he was Indian, would you pick him in the Indian Test team?

 

If he was a New Zealander, would you pick him in the New Zealand Test team?

 

Have you watched him almost single-handedly win an Ashes Test batting with number 11?

 

Have you watched him single-handedly win a World Cup final?

 

There are stats and there are impact players. Stats don't paint a picture of the amount of impact a player has had on a team's results.

 

[Majestic]

Stokes is an extremely overrated all rounder and a passenger in Asian conditions. Not good with bat vs quality spin and his bowling anyways you don't expect much in Asia.

 

He is a good player in England and South African conditions and his non performance in Australia this Ashes goes against him.

 

Overall, just a very good player with couple of unbelievable moments/performances in his career. 

[Chakdephatte]

Is inconsistent with the ball but gets the job done. He is too good for a fifth bowler, can be the fourth bowler for teams like WI. It's his batting which I found to be overrated. An FTB as they say, plus never performs outside England. 

[AuxiliA]

He's not as good as people make him to be. His two knocks in the English summer of 2019 have been hyped to the moon. Still a fantastic allrounder but definitely overrated. 

 

 

[Chakdephatte]

.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Chakdephatte
Why did I post this

[Jay]

Impact player. I rate him. He has all the shots. Good bowling for sen conditions. Just not Asia and Australia. 

 

Although he bowled lion hearted spells vs India in India. Don't forget. 

[putrevus]

6 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Batting averge of 35. He is better than others, but just an average batsman.

 

Bowling wise he is 5th bowler without much impact.

 

Rarely performs anything of note in away matches.

He is having a off year.He is more a batsman who can bowl.When right he is the best allrounder in world by mile.Did he not score 258 in SA.

[nevada]

His main selling point is impact in pressure situations. In this series, he has failed to do anything impactful in any of the tests he has played. That's very disappointing. He shouldn't have played this series. He came back after a mental break and England happily picked him, hoping he would work miracles like he didn't miss a beat. Big mistake! 

[Trichromatic]

6 hours ago, Chakdephatte said:

Numbers are not true indicators of all-rounders' worth. His usefulness is that if he fails to score, he is expected to deliver with the ball. That has been the case throughout his career.

 

He gets more swing than any Indian bowler on average, controls the old ball well, is lethal with reverse swinging ball. I will take him over Iyer or Vihari anyday.

 

All I see expectations and talk by commentators.

 

How many times has he delivered with the ball?

 

How often does he perform with bat in away matches?

[Trichromatic]

7 hours ago, Texan said:

If he was Indian, would you pick him in the Indian Test team?

 

If he was a New Zealander, would you pick him in the New Zealand Test team?

 

Have you watched him almost single-handedly win an Ashes Test batting with number 11?

 

Have you watched him single-handedly win a World Cup final?

 

There are stats and there are impact players. Stats don't paint a picture of the amount of impact a player has had on a team's results.

 

 

For Indian team, he would be just another Rahane with ability to bowl in current form.

 

He won 1 Ashes match in England. Lot of players have played great knocks without being great overall.

 

He will walk into all teams in shorter format. Question is more about tests and especially away matches.

 

Forget stats, what impact does he has in matches?

 

This is like saying that Sehwag was impact test player in SA, NZ and England and stats don't paint true picture.

[Trichromatic]

13 minutes ago, nevada said:

His main selling point is impact in pressure situations. In this series, he has failed to do anything impactful in any of the tests he has played. That's very disappointing. He shouldn't have played this series. He came back after a mental break and England happily picked him, hoping he would work miracles like he didn't miss a beat. Big mistake! 

 

 

And how often does he manage that?

 

He has done it 3-4 times in his career. Is it worth keeping a player for 100 tests for that?

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

All I see expectations and talk by commentators.

 

How many times has he delivered with the ball?

 

How often does he perform with bat in away matches?

How many allrounders have scored 10 hundreds and 24 50s in 74 tests.What is it he should be doing?

[Trichromatic]

22 minutes ago, putrevus said:

He is having a off year.He is more a batsman who can bowl.When right he is the best allrounder in world by mile.Did he not score 258 in SA.

 

Yes and as batsman he averages 35 in overall career. Bowling wise he performs once in year. 

[Trichromatic]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

How many allrounders have scored 10 hundreds and 24 50s in 74 tests.What is it he should be doing?

 

He is a primarily a batsman, should be averaging at least 40 with bat.

[putrevus]

Just now, Trichromatic said:

 

Yes and as batsman he averages 35 in overall career. Bowling wise he performs once in year. 

What do you mean by performing once a year as a bowler.To me he performed in all three tests in this series also as a bowler.He is the enforcer for them.He is not there to pick 5fers.He is there to do the dirty job.He has done that just fine.

[putrevus]

2 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

He is a primarily a batsman, should be averaging at least 40 with bat.

Who said that he needs to avg 40 with bat.When right he will still walk into all the teams.

[Chakdephatte]

54 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

He is a primarily a batsman, should be averaging at least 40 with bat.

There should be no strict rules about this. Only pure batsmen average 40s. And those all-rounders who have average high with the bat are very ordinary bowlers, for example Symonds, Klusener, average over 35. Stokes is not as good a batsman as Symonds or Watson but a much better bowler. If you want a true all-rounder from him, you are expecting too much, there have been 4 or 5 proper all-rounders in history.