Stokes v Flintoff v Botham

atypical_boro

atypical_boro

Well-known member
Statistically, Stokes is soon to be officially better than Fred, and I think most would argue that's fair.

Up to third in the batting rankings (above Root, Warner, Kane and Pujara) and a rating of 498 at the top of the all-rounder rankings. He's only just 29 so maybe has another two years at his peak.

Fred reached 501 at his pomp, Stokes will soon beat that, possibly even next week.

But what is quite mind-blowing is Botham's form around 1982. 646 in the all-rounder ratings, only bettered in history by Gary Sobers. Stokes will never reach those heights as his bowling's not that level. Easy to forget though that at one point Botham's batting was every bit as good as Stokes' (even if he didn't maintain it) and his bowling was even better than Fred's, all at once.

Will Ben Stokes ever become a peer in the House of Lords though? I doubt anyone though that Beefy would back in the 80s.

Also a mention for Tony Greig, Stokes still needs a few more points to overtake him too.

Re ODIs, Stokes is way behind the others though, despite his amazing performances last summer.
 
Last edited:
I'd say Stokes is ahead of Flintoff in batting and fielding already.

I thought Flintoff's main strength was bowling, and would class him as a frontline test bowler, rather than a good 5th option, which is what Stokes is.

I don't think you'd pick Stokes for his bowling if he couldn't bat, and I don't think you'd pick Flintoff for his batting if he couldn't bowl.

I suppose which is better depends on the make up of the rest of the team; at the moment, when bowling options are plentiful and the batting is a bit shaky, you'd take Stokes every time.

I've left Botham out of this really; I did see him play but only well past his best.
 
Stokes is the second cricketer after Ian Botham to have over 4,000 runs and over 100 wickets in Tests for England.

That achievement in itself says everything....and to think there's only more to come from Benjamin!
 
Frozen Horse said:
I'd say Stokes is ahead of Flintoff in batting and fielding already.

I thought Flintoff's main strength was bowling, and would class him as a frontline test bowler, rather than a good 5th option, which is what Stokes is.

I don't think you'd pick Stokes for his bowling if he couldn't bat, and I don't think you'd pick Flintoff for his batting if he couldn't bowl.

I suppose which is better depends on the make up of the rest of the team; at the moment, when bowling options are plentiful and the batting is a bit shaky, you'd take Stokes every time.

I've left Botham out of this really; I did see him play but only well past his best.
Click to expand...
Me too, even met him at Stockton CC briefly as a kid, but you only have to look at his stats from 77-87 to appreciate how good he was, even if his batting was left wanting later on.

TBF I saw him in 1992 (on telly) in the World Cup and he was still useful in that role as pinch hitter/opener and first change bowler.
 
I did see Botham hit a century live for Worcestershire vs Yorkshire at Scarborough, not long before he signed for Durham. Didn't look in good shape for bowling though.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I did see Botham hit a century live for Worcestershire vs Yorkshire at Scarborough, not long before he signed for Durham. Didn't look in good shape for bowling though.
Click to expand...
I actually saw him hit a ton (live) at Stockton AGAINST Worcestershire, his final first class ton, fittingly against his former club.
 
Botham was by far the best bowler and Stokes similarly the best batter if he keeps this form up, Freddie was pure impact and unplayable on his day.
 
gravy173 said:
Botham was by far the best bowler and Stokes similarly the best batter if he keeps this form up, Freddie was pure impact and unplayable on his day.
Click to expand...
As I was saying in OP though, I think its easy to forget that in the first 5 years Botham was a world class batsman too, at least according to the stats.
 
Stokes is better than them all, in my opinion, and due to his fitness and professionalism, he's probably going to play longer at his highest level, which probably still hasn't happened yet.

He's by far the better batsman of them all, there's no doubt in this, and the best fielder too.

Bowling wise, his stats are currently slightly worse than Botham's, but don't forget Botham had zero competition from the other England bowlers, who were pretty awful in the 80's. I think some of thelove for Botham is down to his charachter and that we had nothing else, which is totally fine, but not good for comparisons of players

How many times has Stokes had the chance to bowl at muck batsmen, and get cheap wickets, not many. Most of the time he's 1st, 2nd or 3rd change, once the batsmen are already set. Freddie suffered from this too, he spent a lot of time 1st or second change, and was never really the number 1 go to bowler in the side, even though he had that ability. I think both of them got less bowling to save their energy for batting, or because there were other good bowling options.

This is why you can't read too much into the stats, they can be taken out of context. Murali has better bowling stats than Warne, but who was competing for wickets with Murali? It wasn't McGrath, Gillespie, Lee & Johnson that's for sure.

I actually think Freddie is the best bowler of the lot, even though his stats are slightly worse, Stokes second and Beefy 3rd. I seem to remember Freddie bowling a lot of spells where he caused batsmen big problems or bogged them down, and then they got out to daft shots off others.
As for batting I would go Stokes, Beefy, Freddie.
 
Wev1 said:
Stokes is better than them all, in my opinion.

He's by far the better batsman of them all, there's no doubt in this, and the best fielder too.

Bowling wise, his stats are currently slightly worse than Botham's, but that's because botham had zero competition from the other England bowlers, who were pretty awful in the 80's.

How many times has Stokes had the chance to bowl at muck batsmen, and get cheap wickets, not many. Most of the time he's 1st, 2nd or 3rd change, once the batsmen are already set. Freddie suffered from this too, he spent a lot of time 1st or second change, and was never really the number 1 go to bowler in the side, even though he had that ability. I think both of them got less bowling to save their energy for batting, or because there were other good bowling options.

This is why you can't read too much into the stats, they can be taken out of context. Murali has better bowling stats than Warne, but who was competing for wickets with Murali? It wasn't McGrath, Gillespie, Lee & Johnson that's for sure.

I actually think Freddie is the best bowler of the lot, even though his stats are slightly worse, Stokes second and Beefy 3rd. I seem to remember Freddie bowling a lot of spells where he caused batsmen big problems or bogged them down, and then they got out to daft shots off others.
As for batting I would go Stokes, Beefy, Freddie.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'm not really seeing your point about bowling. Stokes is a 4th seamer. Botham mostly opened. Botham was #1 in the world rankings for a long time, Stokes has never been in the top 20. There is a reason for that.

You'd honestly have Botham as the worst bowler of the 3?
 
Frozen Horse said:
I'd say Stokes is ahead of Flintoff in batting and fielding already.

I thought Flintoff's main strength was bowling, and would class him as a frontline test bowler, rather than a good 5th option, which is what Stokes is.

I don't think you'd pick Stokes for his bowling if he couldn't bat, and I don't think you'd pick Flintoff for his batting if he couldn't bowl.

I suppose which is better depends on the make up of the rest of the team; at the moment, when bowling options are plentiful and the batting is a bit shaky, you'd take Stokes every time.

I've left Botham out of this really; I did see him play but only well past his best.
Click to expand...
Botham was clearly a frontline bowler too, as a batsman he was hit and miss literally. Didn't always stick around long but his scoring rate was superb. He would also struggled to hold a slot on battling alone, but that is because we had Gooch, Gower, Gatting, Smith etc for his much of his career. Would probably have been in and out of the team if just a batter....but he wasn't just that.
 
Three extraordinary cricketers who I’ve been fortunate enough to see play, given the different eras they played in and the development of things like T20, pitch quality, DRS etc it’s hard to say who was best as they all have done extraordinary things with both bat and ball and could have easily played in the same team batting 5,6 and 7 which is something I would have loved to have witnessed.
 
Stokes simply has the whole cricketing world at his feet. He can go on and be whatever he wants to be.

He's the best all rounder in the world.

He could make millions due to sponsorship and more so Big Bash and IPL.

Clearly he needs managing. He can't play on 3 fronts and IPL etc. I wouldnt want to be the one that tells him he's not playing.

Sky made a good observation. If he needs resting then play him as a batsman only👍
 
Chris_Boro said:
Fielding: Stokes > Freddy > Botham
Bowling: Botham > Freddy > Stokes
Batting: Stokes > Botham > Freddy

Its hard to compare overall due to the eras and comparative strengths of the England side and other nations but I'd say Botham has it right now however Stokes is an Ashes win behind.
Click to expand...

Great debate, but for me it is clearly between Botham and Stokes. Right now its just Botham who was a colossal talent, but I think Stokes will eclipse him and prove to be the better cricketer and one of the very best of all time.
Stokes already the best batter from Botham, then Flintoff. Stokes and Botham won important matches with the bat.
Botham the best bowler. I think Stokes could take Flintoff's second place unless he just can't carry on the schedule. Again Botham won so many matches.
Botham was an absolutely brilliant catcher and more important fielder than Flintoff. Stokes is the best.
I think Stokes is the brightest of the 3 and more thoughtful cricketer, a better leader.

All three are England greats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top