Which English Test side was stronger? Michael Vaughan's led side? Or Strauss and Cook's led side?

[PhatBoy]

Don't know if it's really being fair to Flintoff to have to compare him to the spectre cast by this hypothetical superhuman Ben Stokes you're conjuring here.

I don’t think he is superhuman but I think because Flintoff more or less led the attack for a while his bowling ability is embellished somewhat. Stokes has never ever been given that role because he’s ALWAYS had two career long new ball stars ahead of him.

But he shows enough during those regular spells where he’s called upon to do the donkey work and find a wicket where others can’t, to suggest that if he was bowling first change and asked to do the role Flintoff was, he is probably capable of doing it.

On the flip side if Flintoff was called upon to be a top five standard batsman I don’t think he could

 

[Gethelred]

I don’t think he is superhuman but I think because Flintoff more or less led the attack for a while his bowling ability is embellished somewhat. Stokes has never ever been given that role because he’s ALWAYS had two career long new ball stars ahead of him.

But he shows enough during those regular spells where he’s called upon to do the donkey work and find a wicket where others can’t, to suggest that if he was bowling first change and asked to do the role Flintoff was, he is probably capable of doing it.

On the flip side if Flintoff was called upon to be a top five standard batsman I don’t think he could

I just think you're introducing something he's never done as though he could do it, and directly comparing that to something Flintoff did and did quite a bit early in his career.

There's also the bit that Flintoff had a habit of bowling through injury and just getting it done. Captain had no-one else to call on, Flintoff shouldn't really bowl anymore; throws him the ball, the rest is history. Course, we're hitting him around a little in here, so looking at how often he did that for his team then wondering permaybehaps that's why the back end of his career isn't much to write home about.

Overrated, or bowled into the dirt early?

Anyway, it's an exceedingly odd day in which I go into bat for anyone involved with 2005, but that's cricket I suppose.

 

[PhatBoy]

I just think you're introducing something he's never done as though he could do it, and directly comparing that to something Flintoff did and did quite a bit early in his career.

There's also the bit that Flintoff had a habit of bowling through injury and just getting it done. Captain had no-one else to call on, Flintoff shouldn't really bowl anymore; throws him the ball, the rest is history. Course, we're hitting him around a little in here, so looking at how often he did that for his team then wondering permaybehaps that's why the back end of his career isn't much to write home about.

Overrated, or bowled into the dirt early?

Anyway, it's an exceedingly odd day in which I go into bat for anyone involved with 2005, but that's cricket I suppose.

Probably both.

Stokes already has more five wicket hauls in nine less tests so while it’s not a huge sample - he’s only taken four - it does suggest with a bigger role he’s be as capable of filling it.

Put simply I think because his bowling doesn’t have a defining moment or period like Flintoff does with 2005, he’s often regarded just as an extra option.

I think that grossly undervalues Stokes’ skill set with the ball.
He’s a very very good bowler

 

[Gethelred]

Probably both.

Stokes already has more five wicket hauls in nine less tests so while it’s not a huge sample - he’s only taken four - it does suggest with a bigger role he’s be as capable of filling it.

Put simply I think because his bowling doesn’t have a defining moment or period like Flintoff does with 2005, he’s often regarded just as an extra option.

I think that grossly undervalues Stokes’ skill set with the ball.
He’s a very very good bowler

I don't disagree, necessarily. I do think, though, that England could do better by telling Stokes to spend much less time practicing his bowling, and to get his batting average up to where it could be, late 40's low 50's.

Root is a good player, but they're absolutely crying out for at least one other bloke averaging 50ish. You can't expect to run around featuring a batting order of blokes who explode once in ten innings but outside of that are kind of ordinary. If you just keep selecting people who average in the 30's, you're going to just fall in a heap when they all don't fire at once.

Oh. Wait. That's right, that isn't the narrative; it was the pitch that did it.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't disagree, necessarily. I do think, though, that England could do better by telling Stokes to spend much less time practicing his bowling, and to get his batting average up to where it could be, late 40's low 50's.

Root is a good player, but they're absolutely crying out for at least one other bloke averaging 50ish. You can't expect to run around featuring a batting order of blokes who explode once in ten innings but outside of that are kind of ordinary. If you just keep selecting people who average in the 30's, you're going to just fall in a heap when they all don't fire at once.

Oh. Wait. That's right, that isn't the narrative; it was the pitch that did it.

Well I agree with that too - his batting plainly is good enough technically and temperamentally to average at least 45 with the added bonus that he has a gear very few current batsmen have - beyond the keepers in Pant and QDK and the king of the frustrators Dickwella, only really Warner has a test match batting speed that peaks similar to Stokes - he should be better than he is. Flintoff didn’t have that so for him to get what he did out of his batting was a credit to his eye and his ability to chime in when it counted most.

But I think I’m in the minority in saying I like watching stokes’ bowling as much as I like his batting.

I don’t think he has any tricks that are the equal of Broad or Anderson or Hoggard or Harmison or Jones’ tricks/strengths but he probably has as much if not more versatility than all of them which is what I find fascinating about him. It would be a shame for that to disappear

 

[Gethelred]

Well I agree with that too - his batting plainly is good enough technically and temperamentally to average at least 45 with the added bonus that he has a gear very few current batsmen have - beyond the keepers in Pant and QDK and the king of the frustrators Dickwella, only really Warner has a test match batting speed that peaks similar to Stokes - he should be better than he is. Flintoff didn’t have that so for him to get what he did out of his batting was a credit to his eye and his ability to chime in when it counted most.

But I think I’m in the minority in saying I like watching stokes’ bowling as much as I like his batting.

I don’t think he has any tricks that are the equal of Broad or Anderson or Hoggard or Harmison or Jones’ tricks/strengths but he probably has as much if not more versatility than all of them which is what I find fascinating about him. It would be a shame for that to disappear

The thing that Stokes has is - ironically, given the conversation comparing the two in an antagonistic way - the thing he has in common with Flintoff: that enormous heart, that drive when the back is against the wall and there is no way out but to exceed your limits.

That's where Australia ****ed up, multiple times, under Ponting and since. You give your opponent that merest of sniffs at victory, that hint of escaping unscathed or with a draw; that way, you don't bring out their best. Sun Tzu said, 'When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard': Steve Waugh was one of the best at this, allowing opposition a sniff, that merest hint of a possible victory, and thus bought wickets when he needed them, and turned draws into victory.

 

[PhatBoy]

The thing that Stokes has is - ironically, given the conversation comparing the two in an antagonistic way - the thing he has in common with Flintoff: that enormous heart, that drive when the back is against the wall and there is no way out but to exceed your limits.

That's where Australia f’ed up, multiple times, under Ponting and since. You give your opponent that merest of sniffs at victory, that hint of escaping unscathed or with a draw; that way, you don't bring out their best. Sun Tzu said, 'When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard': Steve Waugh was one of the best at this, allowing opposition a sniff, that merest hint of a possible victory, and thus bought wickets when he needed them, and turned draws into victory.

100 percent agree. Aussie fans love to give it to stokes because of the fight and his kiwi heritage etc but the guy, like flintoff before him, has more ticker than most England players of the last thirty years combined.

It often used to be talked about how Flintoff’s best mate off the field was Harmy - they both loved a pint, watching darts etc.

If harmy had half Flintoff’s competitive spirit he’d have been the best English bowler since Botham.

 

[Gethelred]

100 percent agree. Aussie fans love to give it to stokes because of the fight and his kiwi heritage etc but the guy, like flintoff before him, has more ticker than most England players of the last thirty years combined.

It often used to be talked about how Flintoff’s best mate off the field was Harmy - they both loved a pint, watching darts etc.

If harmy had half Flintoff’s competitive spirit he’d have been the best English bowler since Botham.

Absolutely. I can't stand Harmison the English Cricket commentator, but god could the bloke bowl sometimes.

 

[PhatBoy]

Absolutely. I can't stand Harmison the English Cricket commentator, but god could the bloke bowl sometimes.

There have been very few guys in my lifetime who aren’t from Antigua or Jamaica who were seemingly out on the planet to bowl fast and be scary while doing it. He should have been another one. Had all the tools jist wasn’t possessed by the game the way others are. It wasn’t against a great opponent but the 7-12 he took at Sabina was breathtaking

 

[KiwiRoo]

Absolutely. I can't stand Harmison the English Cricket commentator, but god could the bloke bowl sometimes.

agreed. Lots of bounce and quick when he got it right.
You didn't know if he was going to pin the batsmen or second slip though !

 

[KiwiRoo]

Stokes has hardly bowled for a good while now so not sure you could say hes an all rounder.
Not sure if his body is up to it anymore ?

shame as he's a very good bowler