Stokes v Flintoff v Botham

[Wev1]

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?

I'm not saying Botham's bad, far from it, but if you have other muck bowlers at the other end who don't take wickets then the chance of you tacking wickets increases (if you're better than they are).

See this scenario, assuming Botham, Stokes and Flintoff were all the same bowling ability (I think they pretty much are):
England (Botham)
Bowler 1: Rating 7/10 - Botham
Bowler 2: Rating 6/10
Bowler 3: Rating 4/10
Bowler 4: Rating 3/10
Sum of all bowlers = 20, Bowler 1: 7/20 = 35% of wickets

England (Freddie)
Bowler 1: Rating 7/10 - Harmison
Bowler 2: Rating 7/10 - Jones
Bowler 3: Rating 7/10 - Freddie
Bowler 4: Rating 5/10 - Hoggard
Sum of all bowlers = 26, Bowler 3: 7/26 = 27% of wickets

England (Stokes)
Bowler 1: Rating 8/10 - Anderson
Bowler 2: Rating 7/10 - Broad
Bowler 3: Rating 7/10 - Stokes
Bowler 4: Rating 5/10 - A N Other
Sum of all bowlers = 27, Bowler 1: 7/26 = 26% of wickets

I don't think it was as drastic a difference as that (for their competition), but it's just to highlight how easily stats can change quickly, but not based on the players ability, more based on who they play with.

Scenario is described better for debating Warne V Murali
Australia (good bowling attack)
Bowler 1: Rating 9/10 - Warne
Bowler 2: Rating 9/10 - McGrath
Bowler 3: Rating 8/10 - Lee
Bowler 4: Rating 7/10 - Gillespie
Sum of all bowlers = 33, Bowler 1: 9/33 = 27% of wickets

Sri Lanka (Murali Effect)
Bowler 1: Rating 8/10 - Murali
Bowler 2: Rating 5/10 -
Bowler 3: Rating 4/10 -
Bowler 4: Rating 4/10 -
Sum of all bowlers = 21, Bowler 1: 8/21 = 38% of wickets

Now no way on earth do I think Murali is bad, I think he's very good, but he's no Shane Warne. I think that because Sri Lanka's other bowlers were bang average this made the likelihood of one of them getting players out lower, which made the chance of Murali getting them out better.

It's like someone is going in to buy a car, assuming each salesman is the same ability and spends the same time on the shop floor, the odds of them getting the sale should be similar and over a year, each salesman should average the same sales.
Now if one salesman is crap, so he makes the brews all day and has to clean the floors, then the chance of him getting to the customer are lower, which means the other guys chances are higher. The other guys havn't got better, it's just that the salesman washing up is in a worse position, so takes a lesser share of the spoils, this makes the other guys look better than they are.

Effectively Botham had a high market share, as his competition was weak/ none existent. Freddie and Stokes had to compete for wickets with better/ more senior bowling attacks.

It's why cricket stats are quite flawed for comparing bowlers from different teams, sometimes there's easy wickets going and the crappy guys or lower rating guys don't have the ability to take them, or don't get the chance to take them, but the no 1 bowler does, every day of the week. Plus the senior/ better bowler gets choice of end and when/ where he comes on/ off a lot of the time.

It's not as bad for batsmen, as they all face different bowlers, but no's 3,4 and 5 should have the best averages (unless behind bad players), as they're not facing the new/ fresh bowlers and a new ball and they're not running out of partners either, and when they do they get the not out* an an average bump.

To me, a guy averaging 45 from no 1 is worth more than a guy averaging 50 from no 4/5, every day of the week. The chance for "not outs" from no 1 is low, and they face the shiny cherry and the fresh/ better bowler every single time. But on every list, the 50 av bloke will be higher, incorrectly.

Shakes head whilst walking away...

Why, can you offer something to back that up?

 

[atypical_boro]

I'm not saying Botham's bad, far from it, but if you have other muck bowlers at the other end who don't take wickets then the chance of you tacking wickets increases (if you're better than they are).

See this scenario, assuming Botham, Stokes and Flintoff were all the same bowling ability (I think they pretty much are):
England (Botham)
Bowler 1: Rating 7/10 - Botham
Bowler 2: Rating 6/10
Bowler 3: Rating 4/10
Bowler 4: Rating 3/10
Sum of all bowlers = 20, Bowler 1: 7/20 = 35% of wickets

England (Freddie)
Bowler 1: Rating 7/10 - Harmison
Bowler 2: Rating 7/10 - Jones
Bowler 3: Rating 7/10 - Freddie
Bowler 4: Rating 5/10 - Hoggard
Sum of all bowlers = 26, Bowler 3: 7/26 = 27% of wickets

England (Stokes)
Bowler 1: Rating 8/10 - Anderson
Bowler 2: Rating 7/10 - Broad
Bowler 3: Rating 7/10 - Stokes
Bowler 4: Rating 5/10 - A N Other
Sum of all bowlers = 27, Bowler 1: 7/26 = 26% of wickets

I don't think it was as drastic a difference as that (for their competition), but it's just to highlight how easily stats can change quickly, but not based on the players ability, more based on who they play with.

Scenario is described better for debating Warne V Murali
Australia (good bowling attack)
Bowler 1: Rating 9/10 - Warne
Bowler 2: Rating 9/10 - McGrath
Bowler 3: Rating 8/10 - Lee
Bowler 4: Rating 7/10 - Gillespie
Sum of all bowlers = 33, Bowler 1: 9/33 = 27% of wickets

Sri Lanka (Murali Effect)
Bowler 1: Rating 8/10 - Murali
Bowler 2: Rating 5/10 -
Bowler 3: Rating 4/10 -
Bowler 4: Rating 4/10 -
Sum of all bowlers = 21, Bowler 1: 8/21 = 38% of wickets

Now no way on earth do I think Murali is bad, I think he's very good, but he's no Shane Warne. I think that because Sri Lanka's other bowlers were bang average this made the likelihood of one of them getting players out lower, which made the chance of Murali getting them out better.

It's like someone is going in to buy a car, assuming each salesman is the same ability and spends the same time on the shop floor, the odds of them getting the sale should be similar and over a year, each salesman should average the same sales.
Now if one salesman is crap, so he makes the brews all day and has to clean the floors, then the chance of him getting to the customer are lower, which means the other guys chances are higher. The other guys havn't got better, it's just that the salesman washing up is in a worse position, so takes a lesser share of the spoils, this makes the other guys look better than they are.

Effectively Botham had a high market share, as his competition was weak/ none existent. Freddie and Stokes had to compete for wickets with better/ more senior bowling attacks.

It's why cricket stats are quite flawed for comparing bowlers from different teams, sometimes there's easy wickets going and the crappy guys or lower rating guys don't have the ability to take them, or don't get the chance to take them, but the no 1 bowler does, every day of the week. Plus the senior/ better bowler gets choice of end and when/ where he comes on/ off a lot of the time.

It's not as bad for batsmen, as they all face different bowlers, but no's 3,4 and 5 should have the best averages (unless behind bad players), as they're not facing the new/ fresh bowlers and a new ball and they're not running out of partners either, and when they do they get the not out* an an average bump.

To me, a guy averaging 45 from no 1 is worth more than a guy averaging 50 from no 4/5, every day of the week. The chance for "not outs" from no 1 is low, and they face the shiny cherry and the fresh/ better bowler every single time. But on every list, the 50 av bloke will be higher, incorrectly.


Why, can you offer something to back that up?

Well you've clearly put a lot of thought into your argument, fair play, and its all about opinions and I see your point to an extent, but I have only two comments. 1) I don't think Stokes is as good a bowler as even Fred, but certainly not Botham. His bowling can be very useful on its day but he isn't what I'd call a world class bowler, like the other two were. I'm not just basing it on stats, I'm basing it on everything I've seen. 2) I think you're downplaying some of Botham's colleagues a bit. Bob Willis, Graham Dilley, Foster, Emburey etc?

 

[Lefty]

I'm not saying Botham's bad, far from it, but if you have other muck bowlers at the other end who don't take wickets then the chance of you tacking wickets increases (if you're better than they are).

See this scenario, assuming Botham, Stokes and Flintoff were all the same bowling ability (I think they pretty much are):
England (Botham)
Bowler 1: Rating 7/10 - Botham
Bowler 2: Rating 6/10
Bowler 3: Rating 4/10
Bowler 4: Rating 3/10
Sum of all bowlers = 20, Bowler 1: 7/20 = 35% of wickets

England (Freddie)
Bowler 1: Rating 7/10 - Harmison
Bowler 2: Rating 7/10 - Jones
Bowler 3: Rating 7/10 - Freddie
Bowler 4: Rating 5/10 - Hoggard
Sum of all bowlers = 26, Bowler 3: 7/26 = 27% of wickets

England (Stokes)
Bowler 1: Rating 8/10 - Anderson
Bowler 2: Rating 7/10 - Broad
Bowler 3: Rating 7/10 - Stokes
Bowler 4: Rating 5/10 - A N Other
Sum of all bowlers = 27, Bowler 1: 7/26 = 26% of wickets

I don't think it was as drastic a difference as that (for their competition), but it's just to highlight how easily stats can change quickly, but not based on the players ability, more based on who they play with.

Scenario is described better for debating Warne V Murali
Australia (good bowling attack)
Bowler 1: Rating 9/10 - Warne
Bowler 2: Rating 9/10 - McGrath
Bowler 3: Rating 8/10 - Lee
Bowler 4: Rating 7/10 - Gillespie
Sum of all bowlers = 33, Bowler 1: 9/33 = 27% of wickets

Sri Lanka (Murali Effect)
Bowler 1: Rating 8/10 - Murali
Bowler 2: Rating 5/10 -
Bowler 3: Rating 4/10 -
Bowler 4: Rating 4/10 -
Sum of all bowlers = 21, Bowler 1: 8/21 = 38% of wickets

Now no way on earth do I think Murali is bad, I think he's very good, but he's no Shane Warne. I think that because Sri Lanka's other bowlers were bang average this made the likelihood of one of them getting players out lower, which made the chance of Murali getting them out better.

It's like someone is going in to buy a car, assuming each salesman is the same ability and spends the same time on the shop floor, the odds of them getting the sale should be similar and over a year, each salesman should average the same sales.
Now if one salesman is crap, so he makes the brews all day and has to clean the floors, then the chance of him getting to the customer are lower, which means the other guys chances are higher. The other guys havn't got better, it's just that the salesman washing up is in a worse position, so takes a lesser share of the spoils, this makes the other guys look better than they are.

Effectively Botham had a high market share, as his competition was weak/ none existent. Freddie and Stokes had to compete for wickets with better/ more senior bowling attacks.

It's why cricket stats are quite flawed for comparing bowlers from different teams, sometimes there's easy wickets going and the crappy guys or lower rating guys don't have the ability to take them, or don't get the chance to take them, but the no 1 bowler does, every day of the week. Plus the senior/ better bowler gets choice of end and when/ where he comes on/ off a lot of the time.

It's not as bad for batsmen, as they all face different bowlers, but no's 3,4 and 5 should have the best averages (unless behind bad players), as they're not facing the new/ fresh bowlers and a new ball and they're not running out of partners either, and when they do they get the not out* an an average bump.

To me, a guy averaging 45 from no 1 is worth more than a guy averaging 50 from no 4/5, every day of the week. The chance for "not outs" from no 1 is low, and they face the shiny cherry and the fresh/ better bowler every single time. But on every list, the 50 av bloke will be higher, incorrectly.


Why, can you offer something to back that up?

Where are you getting the ratings out of 10 from?

 

[Wev1]

Where are you getting the ratings out of 10 from?

They're my made up ratings of course

It's just an example, the numbers don't have anything backing them up. It's just to show that the same ability bowler can have very different figures in different bowling attacks.

 

[Wev1]

Well you've clearly put a lot of thought into your argument, fair play, and its all about opinions and I see your point to an extent, but I have only two comments. 1) I don't think Stokes is as good a bowler as even Fred, but certainly not Botham. His bowling can be very useful on its day but he isn't what I'd call a world class bowler, like the other two were. I'm not just basing it on stats, I'm basing it on everything I've seen. 2) I think you're downplaying some of Botham's colleagues a bit. Bob Willis, Graham Dilley, Foster, Emburey etc?

He might not be, I'm just saying the Bowling is probably closer than people realise, yet the batting and fielding debate isn't. To be honest I've not seen as much of Botham as the others.

As for the ratings of the other bowlers around Botham, yeah I was a bit harsh but it was more to prove a point how these things can matter. I think Beefy was at his peak after Willis? I wouldn't really rate many of the others to be honest, not above Broad, Anderson, Swann, Harmison or Jones (the latter two only had a short peak).

There's only a 3% difference in Botham V Stokes bowling average, which could easily be attributed to faster scoring/ more aggressive play.
As for strike rate they're the same, Stokes 156 from 9000 balls (0.017), Botham 383 from 22,000 (0.017)

 

[atypical_boro]

He might not be, I'm just saying the Bowling is probably closer than people realise, yet the batting and fielding debate isn't. To be honest I've not seen as much of Botham as the others.

As for the ratings of the other bowlers around Botham, yeah I was a bit harsh but it was more to prove a point how these things can matter. I think Beefy was at his peak after Willis? I wouldn't really rate many of the others to be honest, not above Broad, Anderson, Swann, Harmison or Jones (the latter two only had a short peak).

There's only a 3% difference in Botham V Stokes bowling average, which could easily be attributed to faster scoring/ more aggressive play.
As for strike rate they're the same, Stokes 156 from 9000 balls (0.017), Botham 383 from 22,000 (0.017)

Beefy’s bowling average bombed in the late 80s though, cos of injury. Before that it was way above.

 

[El Guapo]

I'm not saying Botham's bad, far from it, but if you have other muck bowlers at the other end who don't take wickets then the chance of you tacking wickets increases (if you're better than they are).

See this scenario, assuming Botham, Stokes and Flintoff were all the same bowling ability (I think they pretty much are):
England (Botham)
Bowler 1: Rating 7/10 - Botham
Bowler 2: Rating 6/10
Bowler 3: Rating 4/10
Bowler 4: Rating 3/10
Sum of all bowlers = 20, Bowler 1: 7/20 = 35% of wickets

England (Freddie)
Bowler 1: Rating 7/10 - Harmison
Bowler 2: Rating 7/10 - Jones
Bowler 3: Rating 7/10 - Freddie
Bowler 4: Rating 5/10 - Hoggard
Sum of all bowlers = 26, Bowler 3: 7/26 = 27% of wickets

England (Stokes)
Bowler 1: Rating 8/10 - Anderson
Bowler 2: Rating 7/10 - Broad
Bowler 3: Rating 7/10 - Stokes
Bowler 4: Rating 5/10 - A N Other
Sum of all bowlers = 27, Bowler 1: 7/26 = 26% of wickets

I don't think it was as drastic a difference as that (for their competition), but it's just to highlight how easily stats can change quickly, but not based on the players ability, more based on who they play with.

Scenario is described better for debating Warne V Murali
Australia (good bowling attack)
Bowler 1: Rating 9/10 - Warne
Bowler 2: Rating 9/10 - McGrath
Bowler 3: Rating 8/10 - Lee
Bowler 4: Rating 7/10 - Gillespie
Sum of all bowlers = 33, Bowler 1: 9/33 = 27% of wickets

Sri Lanka (Murali Effect)
Bowler 1: Rating 8/10 - Murali
Bowler 2: Rating 5/10 -
Bowler 3: Rating 4/10 -
Bowler 4: Rating 4/10 -
Sum of all bowlers = 21, Bowler 1: 8/21 = 38% of wickets

Now no way on earth do I think Murali is bad, I think he's very good, but he's no Shane Warne. I think that because Sri Lanka's other bowlers were bang average this made the likelihood of one of them getting players out lower, which made the chance of Murali getting them out better.

It's like someone is going in to buy a car, assuming each salesman is the same ability and spends the same time on the shop floor, the odds of them getting the sale should be similar and over a year, each salesman should average the same sales.
Now if one salesman is crap, so he makes the brews all day and has to clean the floors, then the chance of him getting to the customer are lower, which means the other guys chances are higher. The other guys havn't got better, it's just that the salesman washing up is in a worse position, so takes a lesser share of the spoils, this makes the other guys look better than they are.

Effectively Botham had a high market share, as his competition was weak/ none existent. Freddie and Stokes had to compete for wickets with better/ more senior bowling attacks.

It's why cricket stats are quite flawed for comparing bowlers from different teams, sometimes there's easy wickets going and the crappy guys or lower rating guys don't have the ability to take them, or don't get the chance to take them, but the no 1 bowler does, every day of the week. Plus the senior/ better bowler gets choice of end and when/ where he comes on/ off a lot of the time.

It's not as bad for batsmen, as they all face different bowlers, but no's 3,4 and 5 should have the best averages (unless behind bad players), as they're not facing the new/ fresh bowlers and a new ball and they're not running out of partners either, and when they do they get the not out* an an average bump.

To me, a guy averaging 45 from no 1 is worth more than a guy averaging 50 from no 4/5, every day of the week. The chance for "not outs" from no 1 is low, and they face the shiny cherry and the fresh/ better bowler every single time. But on every list, the 50 av bloke will be higher, incorrectly.


Why, can you offer something to back that up?

Murali needs to return 200+ of his wickets for chucking his doosra.

 

[Alan_Breck]

I actually saw him hit a ton (live) at Stockton AGAINST Worcestershire, his final first class ton, fittingly against his former club.

Yes, I was there too, and he was caught on 101 if I remember correctly.

This such a difficult conundrum, but agree about leaving out Freddie so definitely between Sir Ian and Sir Ben. If I had to chose I'd possibly go for Botham as he was competing for England honours when there were so many really good cricketers around. I don't think Stokes has the same class of competition around him that Botham had, to shine and get noticed.

#UTB

 

[atypical_boro]

Yes, I was there too, and he was caught on 101 if I remember correctly.

This such a difficult conundrum, but agree about leaving out Freddie so definitely between Sir Ian and Sir Ben. If I had to chose I'd possibly go for Botham as he was competing for England honours when there were so many really good cricketers around. I don't think Stokes has the same class of competition around him that Botham had, to shine and get noticed.

#UTB

Hmm, as a batsman though, Stokes is currently above some very good players in the rankings.

 

[Lefty]

Well you've clearly put a lot of thought into your argument, fair play, and its all about opinions and I see your point to an extent, but I have only two comments. 1) I don't think Stokes is as good a bowler as even Fred, but certainly not Botham. His bowling can be very useful on its day but he isn't what I'd call a world class bowler, like the other two were. I'm not just basing it on stats, I'm basing it on everything I've seen. 2) I think you're downplaying some of Botham's colleagues a bit. Bob Willis, Graham Dilley etc?

I thought it was generally considered that fast bowlers got more wickets with better bowlers at the other end, due to pressure.

See Trueman and Statham, Botham and Willis, Hall and Griffiths, Gough and Caddick, Anderson and Broad, Wasim and Waqar, Lillee and Thomson, Roberts/Holding/Garner/Croft/Daniel/Marshall, Ambrose and Walsh, McGrath and Lee/Gillespie/Warne.

Botham was an exceptional slip fielder remember. He actually stood a yard closer than many others since his reactions were so quick. 120 catches from 102. I think only Strauss has more with 121 from 100 matches. Not bad considering Botham couldn't be in the slips when bowling.

Also, Botham was and is still the fastest player to 100 wickets and 1,000 runs double in tests and 200 wickets and 2,000 runs.

Just in terms of bowling, Botham is (joint) 7th fastest to 100 wickets of all time. Yasir Shah and Ashwin are the only post war players quicker than Beefy to that milestone.

He is the (joint) 7th fastest to 200 wickets, behind only Shah, Grimmett (pre war), Ashwin, Lillee, Waqar and Steyn. So ahead of Marshall, Donald, Garner, Hadlee, Khan, Ambrose, McGrath, Roberts, Trueman, Holding, Hoggard, Willis, Warne, Murali, Mushtaq, Kumble. To give you some further perspective, Jimmy Anderson is 56th fastest and Stuart Broad 68th, our greatest ever wicket takers.

At his prime, before the back injury, Botham was quick and could swing the ball both ways and other than possibly Lillee and the Windies quartet, there wasn't a better bowler in the world.

After the injury he lost pace and the ability to swing the ball both ways, so he had to learn how to be a clever bowler and outhink batsmen. He averaged 21.2 per wicket on his first 200 wickets. That is a top drawer bowler.

For a couple of years Flintoff was probably as good a fast bowler as anyone in the world, certainly the great Aussie team thought so and Stokes does make stuff happen, but they weren't close to the Botham of the first half of his career before the back injury.

Also, in terms of batting, it's worth remembering when Botham started his career he didn't wear a helmet much and the bats they used were much lighter and inferior to today. It was rare in Botham's day to hit a 6 that wasn't right out of the middle. Even so, Botham has still scored the 9th fastest double hundred ever in test cricket, an innings where he didn't even give a chance, off 220 balls. The 8 faster ones are all post 2001. Botham actually scored more than 1,000 test runs in a calendar year in 2002. Neither Stokes nor Flintoff have managed that. Like his bowling, Botham's batting did suffer from injuries in the second half of his career.

As an all-rounder it's worth considering that there have been 30 times that a cricketer has scored a century and taken a 5 wicket haul in the same test. Only Sobers, Kallis, Mushtaq Mohammad and Shakib Al Hasan have managed that feat twice. Botham did it 5 times. Five. And he was the first to score a 100 and take 10 wickets in a match.

 

[Billy Horner]

Why, can you offer something to back that up?

You ranked Botham as the third best bowler behind Flintoff and Stokes, and you're asking me to back that up?!

Botham is recognised as not just a great all-rounder, but a world class bowler in his own right. At his peak rating, he scored 911 points on the ICC ratings, ranking him as the number 1 bowler in the world. Whilst Anderson and Broad have also been ranked number 1 at different points in their careers, their highest points totals were 903 and 880 respectively.

Botham broke the world record for Test wickets taken in the mid-80s and held it for two years until overtaken by Richard Hadlee. He held the England wicket taking record for 30 years, until Anderson broke it in 2015.

In short, in bowling terms Botham was clearly the best and highest rated of the three all-rounders mentioned. Quite how you subsequently awarded him 7/10 on your own rankings system is beyond me.

That said, I do think that Stokes is a fantastic all-rounder in his own right. I genuinely think he is a world class batsman, without even considering his bowling and fielding contributions.

 

[Lefty]

You ranked Botham as the third best bowler behind Flintoff and Stokes, and you're asking me to back that up?!

Botham is recognised as not just a great all-rounder, but a world class bowler in his own right. At his peak rating, he scored 911 points on the ICC ratings, ranking him as the number 1 bowler in the world. Whilst Anderson and Broad have also been ranked number 1 at different points in their careers, their highest points totals were 903 and 880 respectively.

Botham broke the world record for Test wickets taken in the mid-80s and held it for two years until overtaken by Richard Hadlee. He held the England wicket taking record for 30 years, until Anderson broke it in 2015.

In short, in bowling terms Botham was clearly the best and highest rated of the three all-rounders mentioned. Quite how you subsequently awarded him 7/10 on your own rankings system is beyond me.

That said, I do think that Stokes is a fantastic all-rounder in his own right. I genuinely think he is a world class batsman, without even considering his bowling and fielding contributions.

That Botham rating was in 1980, when Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft and Marshall were in their pomp!

 

[Billy Horner]

Meant to add, for perspective, Flintoff’s highest ICC Test bowling ranking and rating was 4th with 810 points and Stokes’ (so far) has been 19th and 606.

 

[Frozen Horse]

Beefy’s bowling average bombed in the late 80s though, cos of injury. Before that it was way above.

Therein lies a danger of comparing Stokes' averages now to those of the others.

Most players will go through setting of a decline towards the end of their career. Few retire at their peak .

Botham and Flintoff's figures include these, but Stokes's don't as yet.

Captaincy may also have impacted on the first two, though I appreciate that was only a small part of their test careers.

 

[Lefty]

I often wonder how good a bowler Botham would have been at the end of his career if he hadn't had the injury issues, when you think how good his contemporaries became in the second half of their careers.

Hadlee and Imran became as good as anyone in the world, whereas Botham was already at that level.

 

[Nero]

I've never seen Botham play so can't comment.

Stokes and Flintoff though. I think Flintoff was a better bowler, but Stokes a much better batsman. Both have had defining English summers. Stokes last year was immense and Flintoff during the 2005 Ashes. Anyone old enough to remember that will recognise how good that summer was.