Ben Stokes

[Dr Cricket]

But the question is, can Ravi Ashwin do it on a cold Tuesday night in Stoke?

Or a cool and overcast spring in Northern England?

Exactly. Ashwin is a very good cricketer. But up to now , his bowling success is limited to home conditions (and some very similar pitches in West Indies.)
In fairness , he hasn't played much in England ...but his bowling in half a dozen Tests in Australia was pretty ineffective. Not a big enough sample : but partly for that reason I am not going to canonize him just yet...

As for Stokes : two Tests in conditions not expected to suit him have surely advanced his credentials to anyone not blinkered by prejudice . Not hailing him as a superstar yet either ; but he is clearly improving.
Ginger is spot on re his temperament . I don't mind a fast bowler having a few words , but he has to be able to cop it in return without complaining. Jimmy , for example , while a serial aggressor , didn't complain about some less than friendly return treatment from the Australians ; that is as it should be . Dish it out , take it in return. Let your game speak for you. Hopefully Stokes will learn this - it will make him a better player.

Stokes isn't even a proper batsman or bowler yet.
he only actually had what 2-4 test where he bowls like a bowler and couple of test where he performs as a batsman.
lets not get blinkered by a 2 test series in Bangladesh.

[meninblue]

I guess the irony of some of the comments above is that all of Stokes performances are taken with no further analysis, but Ashwin's career can be picked apart and suggested he doesnt perform in certain areas. Lets make an assessment of Stokes contributions in the same light...

His bowling average only dropped to an acceptable level after a series where in one test he cleared up the worst tailend in the cricketing world, and in another test he took a a couple of top order players with no career records and a few tailenders. Bangaldesh has never really been the mark of batting quality, I doubt ripping up this line up really proves anything.

He has 2 x 5 for, both against Australia. One was a dead rubber match with the series long over, the other came in a second innings with Australia having been bowled out for a historically low total in the first innings, and 350 odd behind England to make them bat again. These are hardly performances that stand out as indicative of a guy who steps up at critical moments.

With the bat he has 3 x 100's. His highest total came in a game where both teams scored 650-700 in the first innings declared for 5/6 wickets. The game ended on the fifth day with probably by memory not much over a wicket per session falling. His first century was hit with Australia already considering the game all but ended, and with field placings encouraged to quite happily see a batsman play shots rather than Faf du Plessis it. In the grand scheme of things it was utterly meaningless. The pitch had slowed a lot and batting got easier as it went on. And the Lords 2015 pitch gave up 14 scores of 50 plus, it was slow and typical of a Lords pitch we have seen where a decent batting team pile up 500-600.... NZ did score over 500 in the first innings.

Have we seen Stokes really do anything in tough conditions? Score 100's in live games where the game is on the line? Take top order wickets with series and games on the line?

Ashwin not got the best record vs England, but did Stokes register 4 ducks in the only two tests he played vs India

Sussex if you take out good performances of any player then any player will be bad.

[Dr Cricket]

but Adi bit odd just to remove loads of good performances for Ashwin but leave Stokes good performances.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I suppose there are a range of views on the more positive side towards Stokes, rather than just a group accepting of the recent press hype. While I wouldn't claim his record stacks up overall, he is improving and England seem to be getting rewards for their nurturing of him. There is a significant caution for his lack of hundreds, which as a top six bat, is what he pays back the faith that has been invested in him (it doesn't flatter him that Ashwin, a bowling all rounder, has more tons). But Stokes is having a good year nonetheless. If he reverts to his previous standard after this winter, it would be disappointing.

[meninblue]

but Adi bit odd just to remove loads of good performances for Ashwin but leave Stokes good performances.

I never discounted Ashwins good perdormances against teams which do not play spin comfortably, did i Not a fan of selective analysis at all by discounting good performance by giving some reason.100 is hundred and wicket is wicket and catch is catch.

[sussexpob]

So, putting that point into context, you would believe that Ole Gunnar Solskjaer's 4 goals in 10 minutes against Nottingham Forest in 1999, a team that were at the time already 4-0 down and were all but relegated in the league after a very poor season..... was four times better a performance than the one goal he scored against Bayern Munich, at the time appreciated as arguably the best side in world club football, that won Manchester United the Champions League.....

After all.... a goal is a goal, right?

[meninblue]

So, putting that point into context, you would believe that Ole Gunnar Solskjaer's 4 goals in 10 minutes against Nottingham Forest in 1999, a team that were at the time already 4-0 down and were all but relegated in the league after a very poor season..... was four times better a performance than the one goal he scored against Bayern Munich, at the time appreciated as arguably the best side in world club football, that won Manchester United the Champions League.....

After all.... a goal is a goal, right?

Ben Stokes haa a ton against Austealia at Perth on day 4 and 5 with a big crack wicket . In Bangladesh 85 runs was very valued considering all England batters struggled. 4 wickets for 10 runs was a spell bowled by a pacer on wickett were spinners took most wicket and heat which he is not used to. Also sample size of Ben is getting bigger and one day we can analyse his runz and wickets on a better sample.


You are just saying dont count his runs because opposition was this and match situation was like that.Similarly with wickets.I dont want to do that with any cricketer.

[alfie]

but Adi bit odd just to remove loads of good performances for Ashwin but leave Stokes good performances.

I for one was not intending to imply that Ashwin's home performances should be discounted : simply suggesting that with - so far - very limited evidence of success away from home , from a very limited sample , it is a little OTT to be putting him in a basket with "all time greats". There is time - let us wait and watch.

Agree with Adi one should not pick through a player's stats and selectively discount performances which seem to run counter to one's subjective opinion of that player.

And I am certainly not claiming Stokes has already become the finished article ... merely that his performances - with bat and ball - seem to be steadily improving. If he is still better classified as an "occasional (strong) impact player" there is at least a hint of a growing consistency. Is that unreasonable ?

[Dr Cricket]

Where did anyone call ashwin an all time great.

[alfie]

Ashwin's wicket taking ratio is really something else. 220 wickets in under 40 games. I think out of bowlers to take 200 wickets, this must put him in the top 3 behind Grimmet and Murali in terms of wickets per game....And a low 20's average that in modern day players, only Murali compares with...

Ashwin's stats are consistent with an all time great.

Not exactly , but...

And I do realise Sussex isn't saying he is an All Time Great. But the comparison is there.

I just think we might be bigging him up , slightly.

[sussexpob]

but Adi bit odd just to remove loads of good performances for Ashwin but leave Stokes good performances.

I for one was not intending to imply that Ashwin's home performances should be discounted : simply suggesting that with - so far - very limited evidence of success away from home , from a very limited sample , it is a little OTT to be putting him in a basket with "all time greats".

Lets do a little maths here. To assume that all players played the same amount of games factored up, in each of the same countries. I am going to take the two established and recognised all time greats with the ball bowling spin, Murali and Warne. Looking at the stats, you will find that all of them perform well home and away generally, barring two away venues. Ashwin has a plus 30 average in England and Australia. Murali in India and Australia. Warne in Windies and India.

Using these countries as a basis.... with each playing in these 5 venues

Ashwin averages 18 in Sri Lanka, 33 in england, 20 in India, 54 in Australia and 23 in Windies. His combined average in these countries is..... 29.6
Warne averages 20, 22, 43, 26 and 40.... 30.2
Murali averages 20, 19, 45, 75, 23..... 36.4

So actually, in the series they play at home, in each others homes, and factoring in their worst performancing areas, its Ashwin who is relatively the best.

Ashwin averages 21 less per wicket than Murali in Australia. I believe Ashwin went to Australia as a debutant, Murali had a couple of tours at his peak. And Ashwin has played in Aus more than Murali.
Ashwin averages 26 less than Murali when touring Sri Lanka than Murali manages in India. And his home record is almost identical to Murali.
Ashwin averages 17 runs less than Warne in West Indies.
When Comparing relative records in Warne and Ashwin playing in home/away flips, Ashwin loses out to Warne, but only by about 2 runs per wicket.

Ashwin also has a far better strike rate than both. In Warne's case its over 10 balls quicker per wicket. He has a better career average than Warne. He also has a better career average than Murali if you take the endless wickets Murali took against part-time Zimbabwe and vastly poor quality BD teams (Ashwin played against a better BD team, and only once). In all other countries not mentioned, each person has performed (or in Ashwins case, not played in SA).

To suggest that Ashwin therefore isnt performing like an all time great offspinner is not really true, especially if using his away record. It compares very favourably so far in his career.

And this is before we start factoring in runs scored with the bat. If we were to study that, we would probably find on a one on one basis, Ashwin was actually a far more valuable cricketer than Murali if based on his initial 40 matches. Negligable differences with the ball per wicket, huge differences with the bat.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe it's not so much that there's anything wrong with Ashwin's away record, but that there's so little of it. Seventeen away Tests, 13 outside Asia. Probably the best post Murali. I've always had regard for him because he emerged at a time when spinners that threw had become the norm. And he turns it either way quite legitimately. A great tour of England, SA or Australia will probably do him a lot of good in terms of global acceptance of his quality.

I suppose the qualifier is that Jadeja averages 17.5 at home, to Ashwin's 20.4. And since March 2013, Ojha averages 19.4, Mishra 17.3. Literally, every home spinner is an all time great in India.

[yuppie]

Ashwins record is going to continue to get better for the foreseeable future.

India still have at least another 10 test matches at home before they travel overseas again.

That means if he plays all these games that 32 off his 49 matches will have been played at home, or 36 in the sub continent.

Ashwin has toured Australia twice, first time in 11/12, second time in 14/15. That last series he took 11 wickets at just under 49 a piece. Strike rate off 85.

Top wicket taker in that series........Nython Lyon with 23 wickets at 35 a piece but a strike rate of 58.

I think there are a lot of questions still about Ashwins performance away from home, and rightly so. His record is certainly skewed due to his home record, and will continue to get better due to how many games he has at home over the coming season.

I think the best way is to compare Ashwin with his peers, and as Arthur has shown above, all Indian spinners have similar stats. These argument wont stop until he plays a few more tests in SA, England, NZ and Australia. Taking wickets against a very weak West Indies team away from have not answered the question.

[sussexpob]

I think the best way is to compare Ashwin with his peers

Well exactly. Ashwin struggles in Australia, but lets be honest, can we name a single post war spinner who was not a one test/one series fluke show that had a good record in Australia? I remember actually doing this a couple of years ago, and when you look at the historical figures, I believe all spinners to have taken 200 wickets in the game average over (or some are just under) the 35 region at least. Quite a lot (Swann/Murali/Harbi/Ashwin) average over 50, some evern closer to the 100's. Those that are closer to 35, I believe none played in Australia in the peak of their powers between say 2000-04. I think by memory Saqlain Musthaq was the lowest, and hits the 1998 cut off point.

One spinner bucks the trend, and I believe its Bedi. Who took a string of 5-for's in the 1977-78 series..... and we know what series that co-incided with? The start of Packers WS, or to put it another way, Bedi was playing against an Australia C team line up.

In fact, if one was to produce a rule from statistics, two of the most unshakeable themes in world wide cricket in the modern day is...

1. Spinners from any country other than Australia, generally under-perform on Aussie pitches to at least a marked level to their general careers, and in a lot of cases seriously underperform to quite disasterous levels.

2. Spinners from any country other than India, generally also make no impact on Indian pitches. This is despite conditions favouring them.

[sussexpob]

I think personally inthe last few years its quite clear that pitches have become more condusive to bowlers, but I think this idea that its "dustbowls" in Asia is so far wide of the mark, its untrue. The BD series was played on a pitch that turned, but it was hardly like it was raging bunsen territory. I have seen late 90's Sydney pitches that grip and ripped consistently more than Indian and BD pitches ive seen recently. Ive seen Asian pitches break up far more.

I think the main difference is there was a clear move in the last 3 odd years to produce more bowling friendly wickets. Test players who grew up in FC cricket pancake pitches arrive on them, and literally dont know what to do.

Even English pitches that swing in recent years havent been as noteworthy as some might expect. The TB test that Australia were destroyed in was just a pitch that did something. It was hardly a raging seamer with bounce all over the place. But growing up on flat pitches, no batsman had the technique to play it.

I contrast that to a pitch in the early 2000's at Headingley, when Ganguly/Dravid and Tendulkar must have scored 600 runs on a grassy, bouncy, seaming and swining fast bowler paradise. All there were very good technical players though, they could do well in those conditions. The modern day India team may have lasted 10 overs.