Ben Stokes vs Kevin Pietersen

[Majestic]

In my opinion, 200 wickets for a batsman is good enough to qualify as all rounder ( albeit a batting A/R but nevertheless one).

Irrespective of that, I will take KP because Stokes batting or bowling both has been poor in Asia and Australia. He has only done in England, South Africa, New Zealand and Windies.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

A top 15 allrounder who is a quality fielder and very useful captain is better than a top 60-80 batter who couldn't catch a cold and was a dreadful captain.

 

[Johan]

Stokes is way superior to Pietersen lol, the captaincy and fielding gap just makes the gap bigger.

 

[Majestic]

Don't agree with the votes. KP was a 47 averaging test batter while Stokes is a 35 averaging test batter and has picked 200 wickets in 100 odd games( on an average less than 2 WPM).

Both players not known for consistency but known for playing greater individuals knocks. Additionally, KP has done better than Stokes away from home, particularly in Australia and India where Stokes has mostly gone missing. As a pure cricketer, KP is comfortably better than Stokes. Stokes comparison is fair with Ian Bell, not KP who is simply at another level. Remember, his bowling went downhill in last 4-5 years.

 

[Johan]

Don't agree with the votes. KP was a 47 averaging test batter while Stokes is a 35 averaging test batter and has picked 200 wickets in 100 odd games( on an average less than 2 WPM).

Both players not known for consistency but known for playing greater individuals knocks. Additionally, KP has done better than Stokes away from home, particularly in Australia and India where Stokes has mostly gone missing. As a pure cricketer, KP is comfortably better than Stokes. Stokes comparison is fair with Ian Bell, not KP who is simply at another level. Remember, his bowling went downhill in last 4-5 years.

how is arbitrarily eliminating one whole facet of an all rounder going to work against a guy who is a pure Batsmen? regardless, Stokes may not take too many wickets these days as his injuries definitely made him more reserved in term of bowling he still is good enough to consistently get England breakthroughs with bowling, his early career figures skew his figures a bit but he is like a 37-38 batsmen and a 30-31 bowler.

England has been going in with three pacers and one spinner for a while so it's not like Stokes needs to bowl much, and in last 80 or so test he has averaged >37 with the bat and <30 with the ball, in AR terms that's very impressive.

and incredibly clutch with either the bat or the ball, I'd take an all rounder like that over a 47 averaging Batsmen from the 2000s.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Stokes is comfortably better than Ian Bell lol

 

[capt_Luffy]

Stokes is comfortably better than Ian Bell lol

Player? Very comfortably.

Batsman? Nope

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Player? Very comfortably.

Batsman? Nope

Yea as a player

 

[Johan]

Bell? reckon he'd average 39-40 today, so be a more consistent and "better" batsmen than Stokes but much less clutch and with less gears than him.

as a cricketer, Stokes is a few lightyears ahead of Bell obviously lmao.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I feel like Stokes is one of those players that will be a bit underrated after his career is over because of his stats. He probably had the game to average 40+ with the bat.

 

[Johan]

Eh, he can still get his **** together and average close to 30 with the ball and upper 30s with the bat, at that point he won't be lowballed in future.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I feel like Stokes is one of those players that will be a bit underrated after his career is over because of his stats. He probably had the game to average 40+ with the bat.

I think Stokes' batting is really similar to Botham's.

 

[Johan]

Oh God, I really hope Stokes doesn't transform into a fat miserable **** and destroys his stats in his last 6 years, that would be very sad but unlikely to happen in modern times.

 

[Majestic]

Posters who are saying Stokes is better than his stats need to apply same rule for Kevin Pietersen as well because he too played more great knocks vs top quality attacks than his other contemporaries. Nobody could take on McGrath and Warne in his first year of test career in Ashes like Kevin Pietersen did with his 158*. The 180 he scored in Mumbai is ranked as arguably the greatest knock by an overseas batsman in India and it is arguably a series defining performance.

KP has performed in varied conditions against great attacks, which I don't see enough with Stokes in Tests. His record in Asia is outright poor.

 

[Majestic]

how is arbitrarily eliminating one whole facet of an all rounder going to work against a guy who is a pure Batsmen? regardless, Stokes may not take too many wickets these days as his injuries definitely made him more reserved in term of bowling he still is good enough to consistently get England breakthroughs with bowling, his early career figures skew his figures a bit but he is like a 37-38 batsmen and a 30-31 bowler.

England has been going in with three pacers and one spinner for a while so it's not like Stokes needs to bowl much, and in last 80 or so test he has averaged >37 with the bat and <30 with the ball, in AR terms that's very impressive.

and incredibly clutch with either the bat or the ball, I'd take an all rounder like that over a 47 averaging Batsmen from the 2000s.

KP was a genuine match winner himself with the bat and in all conditions. What has Stokes won outside England and South Africa? Nothing.

Firstly, take a look at Stokes bowling performance in this decade:-
Matches - 45, Wickets - 64, Avg 29

If you will start rating him purely on average, he will become a Kapil Dev bowler lol but reality is with 64 wickets in 45 tests, he was just a part timer with bowl in this decade. He was a good all rounder last decade but he barely did much with bowl in this decade and hence to make up for not bowling, he should average 40 with bat considering the best batsman of his team averages 50 with bat and if he wants to be rated as a great player like Root, Cook, KP.

 

[Johan]

KP was a genuine match winner himself with the bat and in all conditions. What has Stokes won outside England and South Africa? Nothing.

Firstly, take a look at Stokes bowling performance in this decade:-
Matches - 45, Wickets - 64, Avg 29

If you will start rating him purely on average, he will become a Kapil Dev bowler lol but reality is with 64 wickets in 45 tests, he was just a part timer with bowl in this decade. He was a good all rounder last decade but he barely did much with bowl in this decade and hence to make up for not bowling, he should average 40 with bat considering the best batsman of his team averages 50 with bat and if he wants to be rated as a great player like Root, Cook, KP.

No player can win matches alone, the gulf between England and Australia/India in their home turf in the prior decade or so has frankly been huge, you can't expect him to lead us to victories when the rest of the team simply gets completely rolled.

Stokes last two years hasn't bowled much at all but again, the fact remains that he is an all rounder who can be called upon when the need arises, but with the three pacer and one spinner system actually working he hasn't had the need to bowl too much which is good because he has had knee surgeries, that doesn't change the fact that he is still a pacer good enough to average 29-30 with a 55 strike rate whenever the need be, you add that with him being a clutch batsmen and you got a better cricketer than Pietersen.

I don't know why you're mentioning Dev, as if he wasn't suffering from multiple factors effecting his stats, and as if he wasn't a better bowler than his average suggests, but no, Stokes isn't a Dev level bowler, longetivity, workload and so forth.

and tbh, 36 average isn't that bad in this era, that would be equivalent to 40 probably in 2000s aka the era KP played in, and No he doesn't need to average 50 lol, KP and Cook are not in the same league as Root, don't mention them with him.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Oh God, I really hope Stokes doesn't transform into a fat miserable **** and destroys his stats in his last 6 years, that would be very sad but unlikely to happen in modern times.

His stats aren't amazing at the moment

 

[Fuller Pilch]

No player can win matches alone, the gulf between England and Australia/India in their home turf in the prior decade or so has frankly been huge, you can't expect him to lead us to victories when the rest of the team simply gets completely rolled.

Stokes last two years hasn't bowled much at all but again, the fact remains that he is an all rounder who can be called upon when the need arises, but with the three pacer and one spinner system actually working he hasn't had the need to bowl too much which is good because he has had knee surgeries, that doesn't change the fact that he is still a pacer good enough to average 29-30 with a 55 strike rate whenever the need be, you add that with him being a clutch batsmen and you got a better cricketer than Pietersen.

I don't know why you're mentioning Dev, as if he wasn't suffering from multiple factors effecting his stats, and as if he wasn't a better bowler than his average suggests, but no, Stokes isn't a Dev level bowler, longetivity, workload and so forth.

and tbh, 36 average isn't that bad in this era, that would be equivalent to 40 probably in 2000s aka the era KP played in, and No he doesn't need to average 50 lol, KP and Cook are not in the same league as Root, don't mention them with him.

Stokes has worse stats than Colin De Grandhomme.

 

[BazBall21]

In the years CDG played, he doesn't.

Think this poll is closer than the result suggests though.

 

[Chin Music]

The WPM use to gauge Stokes as a bowler is disingenuous. He still has a reasonable strike rate (58), which is not bad for a 4th seamer and him obviously often having played through injury and thus bowling less, results in what doesn't look that impressive WPM.

Pietersen was box office as a batsman for much of his career, but his consistency let him down over the last few years. As an all-rounder it has to be said that Stokes hasn't always been mega consistent, but he's often produced brilliance that has won his team games in all 3 facets. That's why I would back Stokes.