Botham, Flintoff or Stokes?

[vegster]

Tony Greig's test batting average was 40.43 compared to Flintoff's 31.77, while Greig's wickets came at 32.20 apiece, compared to Flintoff's 32.78.

Greig also snaffled 87 catches, compared to Flintoff's 52, Greig beats him on most tons (8 to 5), best bowling figures, 10 wickets match hauls, he was a better captain than Flintoff, he faced some demon bowlers too Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Roberts, Holding, Garner, Imran Khan etc.

Greig often saved the day with bat and Ball against some of the most ferocious bowlers and some of the most devastating batsmen, was no mean slip fielder too.

 

[Robinjakarta]

Sobers far and away. Still remember him destroying Sussex with bat, ball and fielding at Hove in 1963. Oops. Wrong nationality. Botham then. Not as good as Sobers, though.

 

[blue-shifted]

I'd go Stokes, Beefy, Freddy ..... but Freddy still a seriously good player.

All three inspirational players. As has been said your preference will largely depend on whether you prefer the emphasis on batting or bowling

 

[Arkwright]

Botham better bowler, Stokes better batter, Flintoff not quite as good as either but still comes in the same bracket as a great all rounder.

Interesting that all three were / are brilliant close fielders.

If pushed I'd say Botham as an all rounder.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

I was too young to watch Botham but I think Stokes is the greatest cricketer I’ve seen. He is incredible.

 

[DJ NOBO]

Both (young version) is the superior bowler but Stokes has surpassed Botham now , in terms of overall match winning .
Love flintoff but he’s way behind these two gladiators

 

[Billy the Fish]

I would pick Botham as a bowler! I would then pick stokes over flintoff due to batting.

Flintoff had a career of two halves, he wasn't a very good batsman by the end of it. He was however a terrific bowler later in his career, I was lucky enough to be at Edgbaston to see him battle with Jaques Kallis in Vaughan's last match as captain. Easily the most hostile spell of bowling I've seem live.

Would still have Stokes in my team, he's the full package.

 

[Jeremiah]

I'd just pick Beefy over Stokes but that could change with time.

Botham was a devastating bowler at his best and blessed with good fortune picking up wickets with long hops , also a brilliant slipper. I think Stokes is a better bat.

 

[big nuts]

I’d go with Stokes but came on to defend or put a case for Flintoff at least being considered amongst them.

Started of as a batsman and 5th bowler. Up until his injuries he was a pretty consistent run scorer. 8 successive fifties in 8 tests in his peak batting career 2003-05.

That great England team of 05 broke up really quickly and his batting suffered more than anything with his injuries starting to mount up.

04/05 he was a genuine all rounder in the Stokes & Botham class but post 05 he was really just a great bowler with occasional lower order runs.

His bowling average doesn’t do him justice. Between 06-09 he was leading a pretty average bowling attack and teams would see him off and cash in on the likes of Saj Mahmood & Liam Plunkett at the other end. Remember this was the era we were picking Kabir Ali & Darren Pattinson.

2 posts ago the dual with Jacques Kallis was mentioned. Unbelievable passage of play but Kallis knew he only had to see him out as no pressure coming from the other end.

So Stokes & Botham are 1 & 2 but in 04 & 05 Flintoff was right up there.

 

[GREASED WEASEL]

Botham faced the might of the Windies

Stokes never had that privilege

And Botham is a far superior bowler to Stokes

 

[jakarta]

Lord Botham at present.

When Stokes gets 300 plus wickets I may change my mind.

Loved Freddie but clearly 3rd place behind these pair, very much nicer bloke from what I can see...

 

[Sussexscots]

When I saw this thread, my first thought was Botham. Thinking it over, however, I've come to believe it's Stokes.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Flintoff isn´t anywhere near Stokes or Botham. He was a presence, but neither great at bowling or batting - decent at both. Even at the time, I always thought he was a little over-rated

 

[DJ NOBO]

To anyone who hasn’t picked Stokes, Seriously what more does he have to do?
It’s not like he’s just an average bowler - he has won england several important games with the ball.
Stokes consistently delivers when the stakes are at their very highest.
He is a superhuman sportsman.
It’s like asking who is Albion’s best current centre back.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

I know it’s not following the rules, but if you’re picking an all-time England team, I’d bat Greig at 5, Stokes at 6 and Botham at 8, and play all three.

 

[GREASED WEASEL]

Only 23 players have taken 5 wickets and scored a century in the same test match

Botham is the only player to achieve this 5 times

Only 3 players have scored a century and taken 10 wkts in the same test

Imran Khan,Shakib Al Hasan and Ian Botham

 

[Weststander]

Botham.

A quality international bowler for many years, reliable slip fielder and he scored vital scores against brilliant attacks. With his clever bowling he could break through stubborn middle and tail orders on flat pitches where we were desperate for a breakthrough.

Added to this he had a tough x factor, never intimidated by bullying opposition. Decades ago I read an early bio, where it was said he honed that under the fearless Brian Close.

If Stokes is still producing the goods with bat and ball in 5 years time, he’s probably the equal of Botham.

Interesting that they both have that hard edge.

 

[Berty23]

Botham faced the might of the Windies

Stokes never had that privilege

And Botham is a far superior bowler to Stokes

And he averaged about 20 with the bat and 35 with ball against them! He demolished a poor Aussie side though.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Beefy for me.
Quite what Flintoff is doing in this poll is beyond me...

Getting my vote?

Yes.

Look, Freddie can captain a pedallo, do a bit of boxing, present a bit of telly (in and out of a car) and play some cricket. If that isn't an all rounder par excellence, what is?

Edit: Second only to Denis Foreman, David Walliams, or possibly Edie Izzard, in my book.

 

[big nuts]

Flintoff isn´t anywhere near Stokes or Botham. He was a presence, but neither great at bowling or batting - decent at both. Even at the time, I always thought he was a little over-rated

What about during his golden spell which sadly lasted about two years?

Flintoff delivered against the best team in the world and possibly the greatest of all time. He scored runs against the greatest leg spinner, one of the best fast bowlers in McGrath and dominated the best wicket keeper batsman of all time with the ball. Gilchrist was untouchable and feared at that stage. The plan of over the wicket to the left hander worked a treat and he barely scored a run all series.

Add to that he took wickets against the likes of Langer and Ponting regularly as well as score runs at crucial times he was the main reason behind that victory.

And unlike Botham against the West Indies he done it against the best.

Between 04 & 06 I recall he averaged over 40 with the bat and about 25 with the ball.

I still rate Flintoff 3rd but feel he gets a bit of rough treatment in this argument.