Print

[Tailendfielder]

Stokes is already better than Flintoff in my view.

Ill disagree with you on that.

Meant to be 05 vs today to effectively highlight the bowling is basically the same high quality. Keeper batter is arguably better but the top order is a chunk weaker.

I don't agree the bowling is as good. Broad and Anderson walk into the 2005 side (but i dont think they are at their peak anymore) but the 2005 team had better balanced attack.

For the record, which i grant is not part of the debate and also contribute i probably would have picked Chris Read from 2005 until he was too old, not a fan of a batter with a pair of keeping gloves on.

[Johnny]

Such an interesting thread, and interesting hearing different peoples perceptions.

Def take @Buzz 's point that 05 Bell was a bit pants, so maybe I shouldn't have picked him.. I picked career Bell by accident. But likewise Vaughan (OT aside) had a fairly lean 05. 02 Vaughan would be a no brainier!

Bairstow v Prior? I reckon YJB is the better batter, but Prior the better keeper and with a fantasy top 6 ahead of him Priors keeping wins, plus his attacking batting (versus YJB's versatility). Maybe I could pick YJB as a specialist batsman instead of Bell.

Stokes v Flintoff is another interesting one. Stokes def the better batter, Flintoff def the better bowler, so I guess it depends how you want to balance your team (or pick both instead!). If he can keep fit I think Stokes is going to be better over a longer period of timem. Fred had a 3 year period where he was truly world class. I think Stokes could be at the beginning of a 5-6 year stint

[Buzz]

Can someone with access to the stats put up Flintoff's bowling stats vs Stokes' stats please.

I think members may get a surprise...

I would also note I picked both in my team!

[JB]

Flintoff
Bowling averages
        Mat   Inns   Balls   Runs   Wkts   BBI   BBM   Ave   Econ   SR   4w   5w   10
Tests   79   137   14951   7410   226   5/58   8/156   32.78   2.97   66.1   11   3   0
ODIs   141   119   5624   4121   169   5/19   5/19   24.38   4.39   33.2   6   2   0
T20Is   7   7   150   161   5   2/23   2/23   32.20   6.44   30.0   0   0   0
First-class   183   2279911059350   5/24      31.59   2.91   65.1      4   0
List A   282      9416   6536   289   5/19   5/19   22.61   4.16   32.5   10   2   0
Twenty20   39   34   657   827   39   4/12   4/12   21.20   7.55   16.8   1   0   0

[JB]

Stokes
Bowling averages
        Mat   Inns   Balls   Runs   Wkts   BBI   BBM   Ave   Econ   SR   4w    5     10
Tests   27   48   4157   2366   71   6/36   8/161   33.32   3.41   58.5   3   2   0
ODIs   47   37   1472   1473   39   5/61   5/61   37.76   6.00   37.7   1   1   0
T20Is   18   14   256   395   8   3/26   3/26   49.37   9.25   32.0   0   0   0
First-class   100   155   11552   6832   232   7/67   10/121   29.44   3.54   49.7   12   4   1
List A   112   77   2908   2721   96   5/61   5/61   28.34   5.61   30.2   3   1   0
Twenty20   74   46   746   1075   30   3/26   3/26   35.83   8.64   24.8   0   0   0

[Johnny]

I don't think Flintoff stats ever did him justice.

THAT over v Ponting and the fact Justin Langer talked about him at one point as being the best bowler in world cricket.

Show me the numbers and I still wouldn't change my mind - I say Flintoff was a better bowler than Stokes

[Alvaro]

Can someone with access to the stats put up Flintoff's bowling stats vs Stokes' stats please.

I think memebers may get a surprise...

And Stokes and Woakes...

[northernboy1987]

And Stokes and Woakes...

Stokes is in the same vein as Flintoff, rockstar all rounder, might hit the ball out the park, might get bowled swinging across the line for 3, has the ability to bowl some absolutely magic spells of bowling. Woakes is a class act at International level now, just not quite as exciting to watch most of the time, his stats will equal or possibly better Stokes and Flintoff but he won't win the hearts of the public in the same way I don't think.

[felix]

Flintoff
Bowling averages
        Mat   Inns   Balls   Runs   Wkts   BBI   BBM   Ave   Econ   SR   4w   5w   10
Tests   79   137   14951   7410   226   5/58   8/156   32.78   2.97   66.1   11   3   0
ODIs   141   119   5624   4121   169   5/19   5/19   24.38   4.39   33.2   6   2   0
T20Is   7   7   150   161   5   2/23   2/23   32.20   6.44   30.0   0   0   0
First-class   183   2279911059350   5/24      31.59   2.91   65.1      4   0
List A   282      9416   6536   289   5/19   5/19   22.61   4.16   32.5   10   2   0
Twenty20   39   34   657   827   39   4/12   4/12   21.20   7.55   16.8   1   0   0

So, they show very similar average and strike rate at test level over their whole careers.  What that disguises is that Flintoff took years to establish himself as a test player, and if you look at his stats up to the end of the 2003 summer (when he'd played as many tests as Stokes has to date), they're quite different:

            Span                Mat   Inns   Ovrs           Mdns    Runs  Wkts BBI    BBM           Ave           Econ     SR      5   10   
unfiltered   1998-2009           79   137   2491.5   507    7410  226    5/58    8/156   32.78   2.97     66.1  3   0   
filtered   1998-2003    26   43   723.5   174    2148  43    4/50    6/157   49.95   2.96     101.0 0   0   

So Stokes has developed much faster (and who knows what he can become), however I don't think anyone can argue that he's anywhere near the level of 2005-vintage Freddie, yet.

[Alvaro]

Stokes is in the same vein as Flintoff, rockstar all rounder, might hit the ball out the park, might get bowled swinging across the line for 3, has the ability to bowl some absolutely magic spells of bowling. Woakes is a class act at International level now, just not quite as exciting to watch most of the time, his stats will equal or possibly better Stokes and Flintoff but he won't win the hearts of the public in the same way I don't think.

True, but it's interesting to look at - proves that you don't have to be showy to have good returns. If you take Woakes' median score they will not have the peaks and troughs of Stokes. I would not have Woakes over Stokes in my side, but to have both of them is brilliant.

[northernboy1987]

True, but it's interesting to look at - proves that you don't have to be showy to have good returns. If you take Woakes' median score they will not have the peaks and troughs of Stokes. I would not have Woakes over Stokes in my side, but to have both of them is brilliant.

You're right it is quite interesting and it goes for many comparisons too, especially in cricket, I think it's why Kallis is occasionally overlooked when discussing favourite all rounders, his stats are unbelievable but he wasn't a showy player with bat or ball so doesn't stand out in the same way, although he was incredibly valuable to South Africa's middle order. I often think it's the same with Cook, as shown above, not everyone would pick him over Strauss and Tresco yet on paper Cook is well ahead of both of them (and almost any other England opener in history, post war especially, but that's another story) and I think that what makes him so successful (determination, grit, bloody mindedness and the simplicity of his game) is also why people aren't as easily enamored to him as a batsman (ironically it's what I admire most about him along with the sheer physical fitness that allows someone to play 130odd tests without missing one).

[ppccopener]

stats have their place and are a tool a lot use to judge who is the best.

flintoff and stokes thou maybe stats don't reflect the influence on the game, I think they are both similar impact players

fred was on fire in the ashes 2005 and stokes has been brilliant recently.

as others have mentioned, you don't forget the over to Pointing and you don't forget Stokes stunning hundred at Lords against NZ.

if I had to pick one or the other I think Stokes could be a better player for us in time as he is a better batsman..

the way he plays his cricket thou I think he will burn out at around 30

England have to look after him he's a diamond. I would pick the extra seamer(2 spinners) in india so stokes and borad do not get overworked.

5 tests is tough going on this coming tour in the time scale

[Alvaro]

The fact the ECB have signed up to 7 Tests in 8 weeks shows you all you need to know about player welfare. They are pieces of meat. They are disposable pawns in the administrators' obsession with cash.

Break Stokes? Then they'll find another one.

[ppccopener]

The fact the ECB have signed up to 7 Tests in 8 weeks shows you all you need to know about player welfare. They are pieces of meat. They are disposable pawns in the administrators' obsession with cash.

Break Stokes? Then they'll find another one.

absolutely, the ECB will do the most lucrative deal possible as their priority. England,Australia and India cut the cash cow pie up between them not so long ago.

the thing is, no one really needs this saying but, players like Flintoff and Stokes don't come along very often

How long since Botham was replaced(ish) in the Enlgand team?

we had to wait best part of 20 years......

[Buzz]

We had Chris Lewis, he was the new Botham.