• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is Ben Stokes an ATG test cricketer?

Is Ben Stokes an ATG test cricketer?

  • Total voters
    47
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
Stokes could be in the McCullum/ Jayasuriya/ Flintoff league of cricketers = ATVG.
Shakib is in the superior Shaun Pollock/ Kapil Dev league = ATG
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
ATG bits and pieces cricketer. Good for a counter attacking knock or short testing spell with the ball
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I reckon ATVG is a bit of a silly category, but what I think is more meaningful is that Stokes is a great of his time. When we remember the best 20 or so cricketers of the era Stokes played through, Stokes will be amongst that for sure. Stokes is a great.

He wasn't actually a good enough bat to be an ATG though, especially given he was a bit of an afterthought as a bowler for his whole career even when he did well.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
If you look myopically at the stats then no

if you look at his match winning performances, the sheer exhilaration of watching him bat when on song, his inspirational leadership, the context of such leadership, hell yes!

there are jokers here who will rate Shakib above him. Just shows the poverty of thinking that excessive reliance on stats creates
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
TheJediBrah said:
low "longevity"? He played until he was 37. His overall stats actually suffer from not getting to play before late 1999 because of Ian Healy. Missed about 3 years of his peak and instead played on a couple years past it.

Because I love pulling stats out of my ass I'm going to say he would have averaged 54.62 if he played from 96 to 04 instead of 99 to 07
Click to expand...
8 years is poor longevity in modern times no matter how you look at it. He wasn’t good enough as a bat to force his way into that side and not good enough as a keeper to force Healy out of the side either.

If we’re going to use peak averages then again he falls short of true ATG’s as well.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Coronis said:
8 years is poor longevity in modern times no matter how you look at it. He wasn’t good enough as a bat to force his way into that side and not good enough as a keeper to force Healy out of the side either.

If we’re going to use peak averages then again he falls short of true ATG’s as well.
Click to expand...
His impact over those 8 years was close to unparalleled though, he changed the way the game is played (and keepers selected) and his average for the no. 7 position is very much ATG.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
kyear2 said:
His impact over those 8 years was close to unparalleled though, he changed the way the game is played (and keepers selected) and his average for the no. 7 position is very much ATG.
Click to expand...
Important note: I would never say he was an ATG cricketer, this is in reaponse to your argument that a player needs to be ATG in one discipline. Gilchrist wasn’t an ATG bat, or an ATG keeper.

He was an ATG keeper/bat and an ATG cricketer.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Coronis said:
8 years is poor longevity in modern times no matter how you look at it. He wasn’t good enough as a bat to force his way into that side and not good enough as a keeper to force Healy out of the side either.

If we’re going to use peak averages then again he falls short of true ATG’s as well.
Click to expand...
I suppose one side effect of Australian cricket's preference for sticking with incumbent players well into their decline is that people come up with silly opinions like this one.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Starfighter said:
I suppose one side effect of Australian cricket's preference for sticking with incumbent players well into their decline is that people come up with silly opinions like this one.
Click to expand...
Its not his fault, its just the way it happened to pan out for him. He had an 8 year long test career averaging 47, during the most batting friendly era in test cricket. That’s not an ATG batsman to me.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Coronis said:
Its not his fault, its just the way it happened to pan out for him. He had an 8 year long test career averaging 47, during the most batting friendly era in test cricket. That’s not an ATG batsman to me.
Click to expand...
It's a pretty common opinion that he could have debuted at least a couple of years early but they stuck by Healy until it was extremely clear he was on the way out. That's just they way things go. Saying that 'he wasn't good enough to force his way into he side' is wilfully misunderstanding the selection mentality that tended, and still tends, to pervade Australian cricket.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Starfighter said:
It's a pretty common opinion that he could have debuted at least a couple of years early but they stuck by Healy until it was extremely clear he was on the way out. That's just they way things go. Saying that 'he wasn't good enough to force his way into he side' is wilfully misunderstanding the selection mentality that tended, and still tends, to pervade Australian cricket.
Click to expand...
Like I said, its not his fault. But I can only judge his test career based on what actually happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top