Ben Stokes vs Ravindra Jadeja

[Line and Length]

Jadeja's batting average is greatly enhanced by having 20 'not outs' in 87 innings (23%). This comes from batting lower in the order. By contrast, Stokes has just 5 'not outs' in 146 knocks (3.4%) which is indicative of a player who goes for his shots when he is running out of partners.
Both fine all-rounders, but Stokes is a more valuable batsman.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Jadeja noted for not going for his shots

 

[thierry henry]

Jadeja >>>>>>>>>>

 

[thierry henry]

Since I cbf really looking into it myself, is there any straightforward explanation for English allrounders (Stokes, Botham) having fairly typical allrounder batting averages but a weirdly high number of centuries? Or maybe it’s nothing to do with them being English and just something about those particular players?

FWIW I acknowledge you can’t ignore the high number of big/important innings, you just can’t also then ignore that this requires a higher number of failures to bring the average down. And if Stokes is being touted as a batsman because he bats 5 and hits tonnes, then he needs to be viewed as a top 5 batsman who isn’t very good, right?

Also why do I even make posts like this I know this must have been discussed a million times before and a consensus position reached

 

[thierry henry]

The more I think about it though, how do you really go about ranking Stokes above any good all-rounder? What is he exactly? With basically any other top all-rounder over the years they are clearly either a frontline bowler (at least frontline if not necessarily elite) or a genuine top order batsman. Stokes is a kind-of batsman, who bowls. Even if we accept him as a genuine frontline batsman (statzzzz be damned etc) there’s no top all-rounder that comes to mind who offered less or even somewhere near the same with the ball and wasn’t a clearly better batsman?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

then he needs to be viewed as a top 5 batsman who isn’t very good, right?

Yep, he’s an average batsmen and an average bowler but a very good cricketer when you combine those two I guess. I think that’s most all rounders though. Only the very top all rounders like Sobers/Imran/Kallis/Hadlee are ATG/ATVG in one discipline and average in the other.

 

[thierry henry]

Yep, he’s an average batsmen and an average bowler but a very good cricketer when you combine those two I guess. I think that’s most all rounders though.

This is where I disagree. Most of the top all-rounders were frontliners (sometimes elite front liners) in one discipline. Some (Cairns, Shakib, Flintoff come to mind) were more balanced but each of them were genuine frontline bowlers for much of their career. Stokes is like the batting part of a bowling all-rounder but without the bowling.

 

[thierry henry]

Jadeja of course has ‘genuine bowler’ covered and Stokes is not really comparable at all

 

[Flem274*]

2016-20 Stokes averaged 42. That's a proper batsman. Even his blunt career averages suggest test standard batsman and bowler.

So he's definitely a proper player. I'm not sure I would take Jadeja's batting over Stokes bowling either since Stokes provides England that 'something extra' spell.

Stokes also plays every game he's available. Ashwin and Jadeja get juggled outside Asia. It's probably unfair on both now, but exposing them is something India themselves are aware of.

Jadeja clearly the better bowler, arguably the best spinner in the world. Arguably.

Shakib is the best allrounder and biggest prick.

 

[thierry henry]

It’s a shame that Stokes is such a cretinous ginger turd - not just for humanity generally, but because it invites accusations of bias when you point out he’s also a **** cricketer. Typically devious from the **** tbh

 

[Flem274*]

This is where I disagree. Most of the top all-rounders were frontliners (sometimes elite front liners) in one discipline. Some (Cairns, Shakib, Flintoff come to mind) were more balanced but each of them were genuine frontline bowlers for much of their career. Stokes is like the batting part of a bowling all-rounder but without the bowling.

Mate come on Stokes is a far better batsman than a bowling allrounder.

Shaking is a frontliner in both disciplines as well.

 

[thierry henry]

Mate come on Stokes is a far better batsman than a bowling allrounder.

Shaking is a frontliner in both disciplines as well.

Yeah but he’s not as good of a batsman as a batting all-rounder - I genuinely can’t think of anyone considered a ‘top all-rounder’ who is worse in their better discipline. All jokes aside, that overall makes him a decent cricketer but genuinely below basically every other ‘top all-rounder’ just imo

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah but he’s not as good of a batsman as a batting all-rounder - I genuinely can’t think of anyone considered a ‘top all-rounder’ who is worse in their better discipline. All jokes aside, that overall makes him a decent cricketer but genuinely below basically every other ‘top all-rounder’ just imo

I think if England could bat then Stokes would bat #6 but he has the audacity to be clearly their #2 batsman.

 

[Prince EWS]

Jadeja of course has ‘genuine bowler’ covered and Stokes is not really comparable at all

Yeah for mine Jadeja is obviously a better bowler than Stokes is a batsman and their secondary skills are roughly equivalent so I'm surprised by the poll results, but I do think you're a little bit harsh on Stokes' batting.

He averages 38 in the top 6 in a mostly tough era for batting, with a home country even tougher for batting, and he's had to play a disproportionate amount of his Tests against a gun attack because his board is obsessed with the Ashes. I think that's pretty good. I won't go into his history of ridiculously good innings because you correctly point out that if you're making memorable tons semi-regularly but still have a **** average it means your regular contribution was extremely ****, but I don't think his average is bad in context. "Not very good" is unfair IMO. His batting is no Jadeja's-bowling, but it's been good.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think if England could bat then Stokes would bat #6 but he has the audacity to be clearly their #2 batsman.

Batting #6 instead of #5 has never helped his average tbf.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Jadeja's batting average is greatly enhanced by having 20 'not outs' in 87 innings (23%). This comes from batting lower in the order. By contrast, Stokes has just 5 'not outs' in 146 knocks (3.4%) which is indicative of a player who goes for his shots when he is running out of partners.
Both fine all-rounders, but Stokes is a more valuable batsman.

someone find the thread . . .

 

[cnerd123]

Stokes averaging 35 in Tests should be put in context of how bad England batting has been during his career. It's as if a player was averaging 35 in Tests for early 2000s Bangladesh - a rare sign of competence in an other hapless team.

Jaddu is better than Stokes because instead of moaning about having to bat at 8 and throwing his wicket away, Jaddu actually knuckles down and scores valuable runs. Jaddu could bat in England's Top 6 as well.

 

[Xix2565]

I mean when it comes to such discussions I think bowling should be more valued than batting. And if we're talking about giving teams something extra Jadeja has had his fair share of moments as well (2017 BG Trophy, 2016 Anthony de Mello Trophy, the two BG trophies in Australia). He does it differently but it's by no means less effective.

 

[Flem274*]

It really depends on the team. Atokes being a better bowler would obviously be nice but in a hypothetical world where his bowling got worse and moved his batting standard to 45+ they would much prefer that.

India might well take the same deal with Jaddu. They don't lack spinners who can bat.

Nz and Aus meanwhile would happily take a Jadeja with slightly less batting.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah for mine Jadeja is obviously a better bowler than Stokes is a batsman and their secondary skills are roughly equivalent so I'm surprised by the poll results, but I do think you're a little bit harsh on Stokes' batting.

He averages 38 in the top 6 in a mostly tough era for batting, with a home country even tougher for batting, and he's had to play a disproportionate amount of his Tests against a gun attack because his board is obsessed with the Ashes. I think that's pretty good. I won't go into his history of ridiculously good innings because you correctly point out that if you're making memorable tons semi-regularly but still have a **** average it means your regular contribution was extremely ****, but I don't think his average is bad in context. "Not very good" is unfair IMO. His batting is no Jadeja's-bowling, but it's been good.

I’m not saying ‘Stokes can’t bat’, it’s really just that when you go through all the top all-rounders they’re basically all either gun batters, gun bowlers or at the very least frontline bowlers with reasonable records whose quality you could debate (Cairns, Shakib….on average alone also Dev and Botham but that’s controversial and/or complicated).

I still think it’s very fair to argue that Stokes averaging 35 with the bat is stone cold last when it comes to debating the primary skills of the top allrounders. That doesn’t mean he stinks, but it might mean he’s the worst ‘gun all-rounder’.

(and again, not sure it’s an England thing but the next best candidate for worst gun all-rounder is Flintoff imo)

I’m also deeply unsympathetic to the ‘but they have to play Australia all the time argument’….they also get to play long test series, massive numbers of tests in a short span of time, and bloated reputations from playing high-profile cricket