Is Ben Stokes an ATG test cricketer?

[Daemon]

Gilchrist is absolutely not an ATG batsman come on

Apologies if I’ve missed some context

 

[Coronis]

Yet you are adding caveats, and thus not doing so.

8 year career, 47 average, friendliest batting era of all time, not ATG. Happy?

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

These are the facts but this misses a lot of the context

My unpopular opinion as that for any other country Gilchrist would have better batting stats and be looked back on as a better bat. Put him in at 5 for Zimbabwe for 10 years and he looks like a better Andy Flower who could actually keep

Fair enough to only judge people on what they did though and not what they could have. Can't really fault the logic

 

[thierry henry]

Well, in Stokes’s favour is he’s a passable middle order batsman, good enough to make a team on batting alone if the team isn’t very good. Then add to that, he rolls the arm over to almost equally passable effect when the mood strikes.

In conclusion, ALL TIME GREAT.

 

[Victor Ian]

He is a Some Time Great. So an STG.

 

[thierry henry]

These are the facts but this misses a lot of the context

My unpopular opinion as that for any other country Gilchrist would have better batting stats and be looked back on as a better bat. Put him in at 5 for Zimbabwe for 10 years and he looks like a better Andy Flower who could actually keep

Fair enough to only judge people on what they did though and not what they could have. Can't really fault the logic

The context being Gilchrist entering international cricket at his peak, in the most favourable batting era of all time, batting 7 behind one of the best top 6s of all time in one of the most dominant teams of all time. It’s hard to conceive of a more favourable environment for over-achieving.

 

[ma1978]

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.

every team needs a wicketkeeper

Gilchrist was the greatest by a wide margin

top 10 player of all tome

but pointless arguing with yoy

 

[Socerer 01]

unless the criteria or filter is low he wouldn’t be close to it

 

[Coronis]

every team needs a wicketkeeper

Gilchrist was the greatest by a wide margin

top 10 player of all tome

but pointless arguing with yoy

Um. Gilchrist was definitely not the greatest wicketkeeper of all time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The context being Gilchrist entering international cricket at his peak, in the most favourable batting era of all time, batting 7 behind one of the best top 6s of all time in one of the most dominant teams of all time. It’s hard to conceive of a more favourable environment for over-achieving.

Couple things:

- Entered at his peak but should have been earlier and missed a few of his best years, while staying a couple years past his peak
- Having watched virtually every innings he played, despite it being an obvious conclusion, I don't think he really benefited, statistically or career-wise, from batting 7 behind a strong top 6 as he did. While occasionally you can fill you boots against a tired and demoralised attack in practice this didn't happen that often. Mostly in good batting times he came in and had to do some declaration batting (usually only batting once a Test) often throwing his wicket away whereas in tougher conditions he'd come in against a firing attack and generally bat twice a game.

Put him in a weaker team and bat him higher he would end up with better stats. Would have had a **** load more great Test innings as well like his 149 v Pak, 144 v Ban, 144 v SL & couple of his tons in India

 

[Gob]

Shakib 39.1
Stokes 36.4

Yes averages are all that matter pfft

 

[ma1978]

There is no context here. Gilchrist is an inner circle ATG. The best to have played his position by a wide margin. No different from Warne or Murali (except a cricket team needs a wicket keeper but not necessarily a spinner)

 

[Socerer 01]

unless the criteria or filter is low he wouldn’t be close to it

just to be clear im talking about Stokes here and not Shakib or Gilchrist in classic cw fashion

 

[Molehill]

I think he's been a bit like Stuart Broad. Plenty of great performances but his overall output falls a bit short of the mark.

Are you saying the overall output of the second highest wicket taking seamer of all time is a bit short of the mark?

 

[Yeoman]

Stokes is a player capable of great performances but not, I would say, a great player overall. He lacks the consistency in either discipline.

If you compare his record to Botham’s, the average difference between bat and ball is not dissimilar however Botham’s record with the ball is far superior.

 

[Molehill]

There is no context here. Gilchrist is an inner circle ATG. The best to have played his position by a wide margin. No different from Warne or Murali (except a cricket team needs a wicket keeper but not necessarily a spinner)

You don't have to play your wicket keeper at 7 though. Yes, he's undoubtedly the best who ever played there, but Sangakkara was a better keeper and batsman, he just played a different role.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There is no context here. Gilchrist is an inner circle ATG. The best to have played his position by a wide margin. No different from Warne or Murali (except a cricket team needs a wicket keeper but not necessarily a spinner)

No one's saying he's not an ATG player

but whether he's an ATG batsman alone.

Which is a very big call for a bloke that averaged 47

 

[Gob]

You don't have to play your wicket keeper at 7 though. Yes, he's undoubtedly the best who ever played there, but Sangakkara was a better keeper and batsman, he just played a different role.

lol not a better keeper

 

[Molehill]

Stokes is a player capable of great performances but not, I would say, a great player overall. He lacks the consistency in either discipline.

If you compare his record to Botham’s, the average difference between bat and ball is not dissimilar however Botham’s record with the ball is far superior.

I'd largely go along with this. The one thing I'd add in Stokes' favour is that when he did give you a great performance, it was often when his team needed him most and in some of the biggest of matches.

 

[ma1978]

No one's saying he's not an ATG player

but whether he's an ATG batsman alone.

Which is a very big call for a bloke that averaged 47

fair enough. I’d say yes given the context of his innings but it’s more debatable