Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Debut
    Jul 2016
    Runs
    343
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    How do Ben Stokes and Shakib Al Hasan compare with the 80s golden quartet all-rounders?

    In the current era, Stokes and Shakib are without a doubt the best genuine all-rounders of this era.

    How do you compare them with the 80s quartet all-rounders- Imran, Hadlee, Botham and Kapil?

    Discuss!

  2. #2
    Debut
    Feb 2019
    Runs
    626
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My honest and unpopular opinion, the fast bowlers of past era are overrated. Yes I have said it! I believe the current group of fast bowlers, globally, are better than the ones from 80's (P.S I am talking about globally collectively).

    So back to your question, Ben Stokes and Shakib-Al-Hasan are miles ahead in terms of all rounders skills than the 80s global quartet all rounders you have mentiones.

  3. #3
    Debut
    Aug 2006
    Runs
    184
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoaib88 View Post
    My honest and unpopular opinion, the fast bowlers of past era are overrated. Yes I have said it! I believe the current group of fast bowlers, globally, are better than the ones from 80's (P.S I am talking about globally collectively).
    It is obvious from your comment that you have not watched cricket in both the 80s and now. If you had, i highly doubt you would make the above statement.

  4. #4
    Debut
    Jan 2006
    Runs
    19,906
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SLcric123 View Post
    In the current era, Stokes and Shakib are without a doubt the best genuine all-rounders of this era.

    How do you compare them with the 80s quartet all-rounders- Imran, Hadlee, Botham and Kapil?

    Discuss!
    Stokes the batsman is world class. His bowling is ok, nothing amazing. I believe the All-rounders of the 80s were elite bowling options for their teams also. Ben Stokes would never open the bowling and portray himself as the strike bowler of any side. Botham, Imran, Hadlee and Kapil were strike bowlers. Stokes is a better batsman than all of them for sure.

    I think you can compare Flintoff to those 4 names but not stokes, stokes can be compared to Kallis, who was an elite batsman like him but was better. His bowling was 3rd, 4th seamer level but he was successful in this department also.

    Shakib is a bit different. Heís not had the Test match success to be considered in this discussion. If he had a bowling average below 30 in Tests, it would be fair to compare them to the legendary all-rounders of the past. However one could argue that the legends of 30 years later were superior batsmen to the all-rounders of the past

    Itís a hard topic and not so easily dismissed due to the names of players

  5. #5
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    27,704
    Mentioned
    911 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    They are as good with the bat.

    But the eighties aces were opening bowlers who would run through sides on a regular basis. Stokes canít do that, and Shakib wonít outside the Subcontinent.

  6. #6
    Debut
    Sep 2015
    Venue
    India
    Runs
    11,817
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very hard to compare across eras but Stokes is certainly on his way to reach Kapil level by the time he retires. As a cricketer, he is already ahead or will sooner be ahead of Cairns, Flintoff and Shakib in test cricket and can reach to Kapil level but will remain behind Imran, Kallis, Botham and Hadlee(not a genuine AR).

    As a batsmen, he is better than all four.

    Stokes
    Botham
    Kapil/Imran
    Hadlee

    As a bowler, he is behind all four and also behind Cairns.

    Hadlee/Imran
    Botham/Kapil
    Cairns
    Stokes

    Shakib is an excellent test all-rounder as well but a level below Stokes. He is better in ODIs though being more consistent and more all-round.

  7. #7
    Debut
    Jan 2006
    Runs
    19,906
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Flintoff is a legendary status all-rounder who didnít play enough, and doesnít have a World Cup runners/up winners medal to be considered in the list of the elite names mentioned of the 80s

  8. #8
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    27,704
    Mentioned
    911 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ab Fan View Post
    Very hard to compare across eras but Stokes is certainly on his way to reach Kapil level by the time he retires.
    Stokes will get nowhere near 400 wickets like Kapil. He might get to 225.

    Kapil got two centuries against WI - Stokes has never faced bowling that good. I always felt that Kapil could average 40+ in tests in that very hard era, but he hammered along at 80 runs per hundred balls which is superfast even now. Compare KP and Root, fast scoring modern batters going at 60 / 100.

  9. #9
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    27,704
    Mentioned
    911 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rana View Post
    Flintoff is a legendary status all-rounder who didn’t play enough, and doesn’t have a World Cup runners/up winners medal to be considered in the list of the elite names mentioned of the 80s
    He was only a test all-rounder for about three years. Otherwise he didn’t produce enough runs or wickets or both. Five test centuries and three fivefers. Compare with Botham’s 14 centuries and 27 fivefers. Good ODI player though.

  10. #10
    Debut
    Jul 2016
    Runs
    343
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Stokes will get nowhere near 400 wickets like Kapil. He might get to 225.

    Kapil got two centuries against WI - Stokes has never faced bowling that good. I always felt that Kapil could average 40+ in tests in that very hard era, but he hammered along at 80 runs per hundred balls which is superfast even now. Compare KP and Root, fast scoring modern batters going at 60 / 100.
    Kapil had eight hundreds in 130 tests, Stokes has 9 in 60 tests and should end with 15+ hundreds IMO.
    Last edited by SLcric123; 16th February 2020 at 01:20.

  11. #11
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Runs
    15,018
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    THey were all opening bowlers. They were the best bowlers of their side except may be Botham when Willis as around. They were key batsmen as well lower down the order. Kapil dev was one of the best fielder too. Stokes is a good batsman, terrific fielder. As a bowler he is not even 3rd best in his side. Shakib is probably the best bowler of his side. But that is mostly because others were crap.

  12. #12
    Debut
    Jul 2016
    Runs
    343
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rana View Post
    Stokes the batsman is world class. His bowling is ok, nothing amazing. I believe the All-rounders of the 80s were elite bowling options for their teams also. Ben Stokes would never open the bowling and portray himself as the strike bowler of any side. Botham, Imran, Hadlee and Kapil were strike bowlers. Stokes is a better batsman than all of them for sure.

    I think you can compare Flintoff to those 4 names but not stokes, stokes can be compared to Kallis, who was an elite batsman like him but was better. His bowling was 3rd, 4th seamer level but he was successful in this department also.

    Shakib is a bit different. Heís not had the Test match success to be considered in this discussion. If he had a bowling average below 30 in Tests, it would be fair to compare them to the legendary all-rounders of the past. However one could argue that the legends of 30 years later were superior batsmen to the all-rounders of the past

    Itís a hard topic and not so easily dismissed due to the names of players
    Flintoff had only 3 5-fers and 5 test hundreds.

  13. #13
    Debut
    Apr 2017
    Venue
    Canada
    Runs
    1,040
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I haven't watched alot of cricket in the 80's considering I did not exist back then LOL, I can only make my statement through the highlights that I have seen (which doesn't generally tell the bigger picture) and numbers doesn't always tell the full story, JUST LOOK AT JADEJA - enough said.

    Anyways, from what I have seen, both Stokes/Shakib are way better batsmen than the previous allrounders mentioned above. However bowling wise, I think those above mentioned were better.

    Also when it comes to Shakib its a double edge sword. He plays for a team where he is surrounded by mediocre/below par level player. One could argue that since he plays for a weak team, stronger teams plans around him, plays out his overs instead of attacking him/plans heavily on how to get him out fast. But you could also argue that since he plays for a weaker team, his numbers doesn't do justice to his name. Stokes have it easier since he plays for a very strong team, everyone can chip in so his numbers reflects his true nature.

  14. #14
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Runs
    15,018
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by light View Post
    I haven't watched alot of cricket in the 80's considering I did not exist back then LOL, I can only make my statement through the highlights that I have seen (which doesn't generally tell the bigger picture) and numbers doesn't always tell the full story, JUST LOOK AT JADEJA - enough said.

    Anyways, from what I have seen, both Stokes/Shakib are way better batsmen than the previous allrounders mentioned above. However bowling wise, I think those above mentioned were better.

    Also when it comes to Shakib its a double edge sword. He plays for a team where he is surrounded by mediocre/below par level player. One could argue that since he plays for a weak team, stronger teams plans around him, plays out his overs instead of attacking him/plans heavily on how to get him out fast. But you could also argue that since he plays for a weaker team, his numbers doesn't do justice to his name. Stokes have it easier since he plays for a very strong team, everyone can chip in so his numbers reflects his true nature.

    Shakib probably is a better batsman than Hadlee was. Not comparable with any other all rounders. Kapil dev was one of the clutchest player in the 80s. Be it is producing a magnificent 175 when India was 17/5 or smashing 4 sixes in a row to avoid follow on, Taking on genuine fast bowlers or great spinners he was second to none. There was this match where Patterson was wreaking havoc India with India was 31/5 he made 87 taking the attack to the opposition. Another innings was when Alan Donald was wreaking havoc he produced a breathtaking 129 at port elizabeth. ONe of the best counter attacking batsman of the 80s. Shakib is not even in the ball park of Kapil with respect to batting.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...africa-1992-93

  15. #15
    Debut
    Sep 2015
    Venue
    India
    Runs
    11,817
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Stokes will get nowhere near 400 wickets like Kapil. He might get to 225.

    Kapil got two centuries against WI - Stokes has never faced bowling that good. I always felt that Kapil could average 40+ in tests in that very hard era, but he hammered along at 80 runs per hundred balls which is superfast even now. Compare KP and Root, fast scoring modern batters going at 60 / 100.
    Well, I would argue that I feel Stokes could have averaged 45 in this era where you have to keep up with the pace of all three formats I.e. having a tighter batting technique and at the same time great hitting ability and improvisation. He is such a brilliant player of pace and bounce, look at that inning of 258 (170 odd balls) vs South Africa, how many players can play such innings??

    He has nine test hundreds already and is younger than Root who is not even 30, he will go down and hit 15+ test hundreds by the time he retires and his match winning ability is there to be seen. KP may have retired with 47 average but his worth was of a 50 averaging batsmen, it's just that he didn't played too long(only 8 years). For Stokes, its his match winning ability outta nowhere which can never be justified by his stats and average.

    As a bowler, may not be that great statistically but he can still turn the consequence of the game with his ability with the bowl. He has 5-fers each in India and Australia on those pattas and let's not forget his all-round performance in Bangladesh. He has done it everywhere.

    The third best cricketer of this era and should end up as ATG like Kapil was, although Kapil can be considered slightly ahead as the difference between their bowling is wider than the difference in their batting. Our Kapil is a legend but your Stokes is also on the way.

  16. #16
    Debut
    Apr 2017
    Venue
    Canada
    Runs
    1,040
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jnaveen1980 View Post
    Shakib probably is a better batsman than Hadlee was. Not comparable with any other all rounders. Kapil dev was one of the clutchest player in the 80s. Be it is producing a magnificent 175 when India was 17/5 or smashing 4 sixes in a row to avoid follow on, Taking on genuine fast bowlers or great spinners he was second to none. There was this match where Patterson was wreaking havoc India with India was 31/5 he made 87 taking the attack to the opposition. Another innings was when Alan Donald was wreaking havoc he produced a breathtaking 129 at port elizabeth. ONe of the best counter attacking batsman of the 80s. Shakib is not even in the ball park of Kapil with respect to batting.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...africa-1992-93
    I only gave my POV from what I have witnessed, as mentioned in my original post. Kapil was probably a top notch OP Allrounder, but I have only seen bits and pieces of highlights. You probably know more than I do regarding that.

  17. #17
    Debut
    Jul 2013
    Runs
    17,826
    Mentioned
    818 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Stokes is not the top 3 bowler of his side, neither a top 2-3 batsman. He's a good batter nonetheless.

    Shakib is an excellent bowler and batsman in his side, mostly because others are very low quality. Regardless of that he's still very good.

    Both do not compare with the likes of Imran Khan who was the best bowler in a quality side and also one of the top batters.

  18. #18
    Debut
    Jun 2019
    Runs
    2,681
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    shakib plays for a weak team. It's impossible to predict how good he could have been if he played for a better side.

    You don't think A shakib in India or austrslia would make a difference lol?

    shakib's batting average would be a lot higher in my opinion if he played for a better side.

    I won't say he is as good as imran or hadlee or kapil.

    hadlee could possibly be the GOAT. Carried a weak n.z team single handedly to a top 3 spot.

  19. #19
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    27,704
    Mentioned
    911 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ab Fan View Post
    Well, I would argue that I feel Stokes could have averaged 45 in this era where you have to keep up with the pace of all three formats I.e. having a tighter batting technique and at the same time great hitting ability and improvisation. He is such a brilliant player of pace and bounce, look at that inning of 258 (170 odd balls) vs South Africa, how many players can play such innings??

    He has nine test hundreds already and is younger than Root who is not even 30, he will go down and hit 15+ test hundreds by the time he retires and his match winning ability is there to be seen. KP may have retired with 47 average but his worth was of a 50 averaging batsmen, it's just that he didn't played too long(only 8 years). For Stokes, its his match winning ability outta nowhere which can never be justified by his stats and average.

    As a bowler, may not be that great statistically but he can still turn the consequence of the game with his ability with the bowl. He has 5-fers each in India and Australia on those pattas and let's not forget his all-round performance in Bangladesh. He has done it everywhere.

    The third best cricketer of this era and should end up as ATG like Kapil was, although Kapil can be considered slightly ahead as the difference between their bowling is wider than the difference in their batting. Our Kapil is a legend but your Stokes is also on the way.
    Kapil of course had the luxury of coming in behind Gavaskar, Amanarth, Vishy, Vengsarkar, Azhar, Shastri. So he had license to attack. He scored 33% faster than Richards and Botham, a jaw-dropping statistic.

    Stokes has come up in a very weak batting era for England, arguably the weakest ever as the CC is not producing test class batsmen. He has been forced to take a more responsible role with the bat and reduced his bowling load, in part due to injuries. That 250 was on a flattie. I was more impressed by his century in India.

    He could conceivably push his test average into the forties but he bowling average will not drop below thirty. He is a batsman who can do a decent fourth seamer job.

    I have been championing him ever since he got a century in his second test on a Perth flier against a rampaging Johnson. I defended him when had that run of ducks and was dropped. I mislike the hyperbole he has attracted since the WC final last year.

  20. #20
    Debut
    Feb 2020
    Runs
    8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Kapil of course had the luxury of coming in behind Gavaskar, Amanarth, Vishy, Vengsarkar, Azhar, Shastri. So he had license to attack. He scored 33% faster than Richards and Botham, a jaw-dropping statistic.

    Stokes has come up in a very weak batting era for England, arguably the weakest ever as the CC is not producing test class batsmen. He has been forced to take a more responsible role with the bat and reduced his bowling load, in part due to injuries. That 250 was on a flattie. I was more impressed by his century in India.

    He could conceivably push his test average into the forties but he bowling average will not drop below thirty. He is a batsman who can do a decent fourth seamer job.

    I have been championing him ever since he got a century in his second test on a Perth flier against a rampaging Johnson. I defended him when had that run of ducks and was dropped. I mislike the hyperbole he has attracted since the WC final last year.
    I do not think this is England's weakest batting era, they were worse during parts of the 90s and 00s but Stokes still deserves a lot of credit for his performances with the bat and several of his biggest scores have been crucial for winning or saving England a game. The fact that he can also pick up the odd wicket adds to his worth.

    Moving onto Shakib, he has been Bangladesh's greatest ever cricketer and their only true world level player .... ever. His left arm spin made him a genuine wicket taker and his ability to score runs made him a genuine all rounder, more so than Stokes, who imo is a batsman who bowls a bit.

    The all rounders of the 80s were almost all genuine bowlers and batsmen. Hadlee maybe was not quite the batsman the others were and Imran was probably the purest all rounder of the lot, but they all had more going for them than Shakib and definitely Stokes. People need to remember these guys could score a crucial fifty and take a five-for and Imran/Botham could do both on their best days. Their level has not been reached by any all rounder since, not even Kallis.

    I think the better comparison for the two is the generation of all rounders in the late 90s and most of the 00s, so the likes of Kallis, Flintoff and co.

  21. #21
    Debut
    Oct 2014
    Runs
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I understand we are free to use any word we want as long as people reading it can understand but I wish posters would stop using the word "inning" when referring to an "innings".
    It is both singular and plural, unless you're talking baseball or something else.

  22. #22
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    27,704
    Mentioned
    911 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Asifnow View Post
    I do not think this is England's weakest batting era, they were worse during parts of the 90s and 00s but Stokes still deserves a lot of credit for his performances with the bat and several of his biggest scores have been crucial for winning or saving England a game. The fact that he can also pick up the odd wicket adds to his worth.

    Moving onto Shakib, he has been Bangladesh's greatest ever cricketer and their only true world level player .... ever. His left arm spin made him a genuine wicket taker and his ability to score runs made him a genuine all rounder, more so than Stokes, who imo is a batsman who bowls a bit.

    The all rounders of the 80s were almost all genuine bowlers and batsmen. Hadlee maybe was not quite the batsman the others were and Imran was probably the purest all rounder of the lot, but they all had more going for them than Shakib and definitely Stokes. People need to remember these guys could score a crucial fifty and take a five-for and Imran/Botham could do both on their best days. Their level has not been reached by any all rounder since, not even Kallis.

    I think the better comparison for the two is the generation of all rounders in the late 90s and most of the 00s, so the likes of Kallis, Flintoff and co.
    Atherton, Stewart, Nasser, Thorpe would walk into the current side. Then Tres, Vaughan, Strauss, and later KP, Bell, Collingwood, Cook and Prior. All better than the current guys bar Root and Stokes.

    I agree on your later points. Botham scored a century and took a fivefer in a match on four occasions. There is nobody like that now.

  23. #23
    Debut
    Jun 2019
    Runs
    2,681
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Atherton, Stewart, Nasser, Thorpe would walk into the current side. Then Tres, Vaughan, Strauss, and later KP, Bell, Collingwood, Cook and Prior. All better than the current guys bar Root and Stokes.

    I agree on your later points. Botham scored a century and took a fivefer in a match on four occasions. There is nobody like that now.
    root
    stokes
    pope

    but bowling is far better now. spinners too with plenty of all rounder spinners now.

    woakes and curran again bowling all rounders. More balanced. far better English team.

    Current English team actually could be the second best English team of all time post 90. Best one was the one with all the greats like KP, prime Anderson, broad, Strauss, cook, prior and the dude that got destroyed by Mitchell Johnson. Forgot his name


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •