Ravi Ashwin is better than Watson/Flintoff/Stokes/Botham if not Jesus

In Tests, he is averaging > 30 with the bat (with a couple of centuries) and < 30 with the ball, after a fair sample size now.

These are tough criteria, not commonly sustained in Test cricket over long periods.

Thoughts? Where does he sit in the pantheon of all-rounders?

He bats number 8 doesn't he? That being the case,he's not the real deal yet and if IIRC his bowling stats away from home are none too flash.

Get off it... Amit Mishra's better than Jesus now.

Shakib's the best of the all rounders atm. Ashwin follows him, imo. Won/ bowled India into a position of strength very often. Has to improve away from home though, but it's funny how low the hype surrounding him has been even in India. He's certainly better than Stokes as of now and would say Watson as a match winning player too.

tricycle wrote:Get off it... Amit Mishra's better than Jesus now.

Shakib's the best of the all rounders atm. Ashwin follows him, imo. Won/ bowled India into a position of strength very often. Has to improve away from home though, but it's funny how low the hype surrounding him has been even in India. He's certainly better than Stokes as of now and would say Watson as a match winning player too.

When did Watson last play a match winning role?

He played one just last month

Spoiler:

Has Ashwin ever played a match winning or turning innings? All of his big runs seem to come when India are either in a position of extreme strength, or when they are on the verge of a heavy defeat.

I can't remember him coming to the crease at 60/6 and saving them.

But yeah, he's a very good bowler, and he's even better now that he's realised the carrom ball is pretty much a waste of time, as he can't control it very well. It's between him and Yasir Shah for the title of best spinner in the world these days.

taipan wrote:

tricycle wrote:Get off it... Amit Mishra's better than Jesus now.

Shakib's the best of the all rounders atm. Ashwin follows him, imo. Won/ bowled India into a position of strength very often. Has to improve away from home though, but it's funny how low the hype surrounding him has been even in India. He's certainly better than Stokes as of now and would say Watson as a match winning player too.

When did Watson last play a match winning role?

Against Pakistan in England iirc... that's not counting the times he's won a match for the opposition.

Henry wrote:Has Ashwin ever played a match winning or turning innings? All of his big runs seem to come when India are either in a position of extreme strength, or when they are on the verge of a heavy defeat.

I can't remember him coming to the crease at 60/6 and saving them.

Against the West Indies. He came in at 130-140/6 and put on a partnership of nearly 300 with Rohit Sharma.

My intention was to highlight a bloke with very good figures given how much he's flown under the radar.

I've always thought that he was a very good bowler and a fairly sound batsman ... his batting figures are a good deal better than I expected.

Meh, he's alright. HTB.

have always rated him...when here he tries his guts out and has performed with some credit.

lardbucket wrote:In Tests, he is averaging > 30 with the bat (with a couple of centuries) and < 30 with the ball, after a fair sample size now.

These are tough criteria, not commonly sustained in Test cricket over long periods.

Thoughts? Where does he sit in the pantheon of all-rounders?

I guess it kind of depends on how you perceive what makes a good or great all-rounder. For me they should be attacking/aggressive/flamboyant/gutsy and charismatic types - capable of frightening the shit out of the opponents with either suit.

And they should be able to turn a game in a short period of time and make a game jump into life. So for me - Botham, Imran, Sobers and more recently Freddie and currently, Stokes. They're the kind of all-action cricket heroes that you dreamt of being when you were a kid - no disrespect meant to Ashwin but I doubt whether he features in many kids dreams. Sure his stats are OK - but I think there's more to it than that. Oh and he covers the ground in the field like a sloth. Fielding is another area where the great all-rounders generally stand-out, as generally they are terrific athletes. Ashwin ain't one of those.

So for me, in the pantheon of all-rounders he's not even sitting in the house let alone at the top table.

I'd have him at no. 8 in the Aus side like a shot!!!

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

lardbucket wrote:In Tests, he is averaging > 30 with the bat (with a couple of centuries) and < 30 with the ball, after a fair sample size now.

These are tough criteria, not commonly sustained in Test cricket over long periods.

Thoughts? Where does he sit in the pantheon of all-rounders?

I guess it kind of depends on how you perceive what makes a good or great all-rounder. For me they should be attacking/aggressive/flamboyant/gutsy and charismatic types - capable of frightening the shit out of the opponents with either suit.

And they should be able to turn a game in a short period of time and make a game jump into life. So for me - Botham, Imran, Sobers and more recently Freddie and currently, Stokes. They're the kind of all-action cricket heroes that you dreamt of being when you were a kid - no disrespect meant to Ashwin but I doubt whether he features in many kids dreams. Sure his stats are OK - but I think there's more to it than that. Oh and he covers the ground in the field like a sloth. Fielding is another area where the great all-rounders generally stand-out, as generally they are terrific athletes. Ashwin ain't one of those.

So for me, in the pantheon of all-rounders he's not even sitting in the house let alone at the top table.

By that barometer, Kalis wouldn't necessarily get a look in as he wasn't most of those in the first paragraph. Yet, he's arguably one of the best of all time.

Shakib easily the best of the current all rounders, imo. With due respect to Stokes, he has performed in about 2 or 3 matches. He may be Botham, he may even be Sobers, but all he is as of now is too early to judge. While I agree Ashwin is not even in the house, I'd say Stokes, so far, doesn't even belong in the same district.

Lindsay no.2 wrote:.........So for me - Botham, Imran, Sobers and more recently Freddie and currently, Stokes. They're the kind of all-action cricket heroes that you dreamt of being when you were a kid - no disrespect meant to Ashwin but I doubt whether he features in many kids dreams. ...............

The kind of all action cricket all rounder hero I dreamt of when a kid- Manoj Prabhakar.

tricycle wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

lardbucket wrote:In Tests, he is averaging > 30 with the bat (with a couple of centuries) and < 30 with the ball, after a fair sample size now.

These are tough criteria, not commonly sustained in Test cricket over long periods.

Thoughts? Where does he sit in the pantheon of all-rounders?

I guess it kind of depends on how you perceive what makes a good or great all-rounder. For me they should be attacking/aggressive/flamboyant/gutsy and charismatic types - capable of frightening the shit out of the opponents with either suit.

And they should be able to turn a game in a short period of time and make a game jump into life. So for me - Botham, Imran, Sobers and more recently Freddie and currently, Stokes. They're the kind of all-action cricket heroes that you dreamt of being when you were a kid - no disrespect meant to Ashwin but I doubt whether he features in many kids dreams. Sure his stats are OK - but I think there's more to it than that. Oh and he covers the ground in the field like a sloth. Fielding is another area where the great all-rounders generally stand-out, as generally they are terrific athletes. Ashwin ain't one of those.

So for me, in the pantheon of all-rounders he's not even sitting in the house let alone at the top table.

By that barometer, Kalis wouldn't necessarily get a look in as he wasn't most of those in the first paragraph. Yet, he's arguably one of the best of all time.

Shakib easily the best of the current all rounders, imo. With due respect to Stokes, he has performed in about 2 or 3 matches. He may be Botham, he may even be Sobers, but all he is as of now is too early to judge. While I agree Ashwin is not even in the house, I'd say Stokes, so far, doesn't even belong in the same district.

Agreed on Stokes. Personally I would not have Freddie in there either.

tricycle wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

lardbucket wrote:In Tests, he is averaging > 30 with the bat (with a couple of centuries) and < 30 with the ball, after a fair sample size now.

These are tough criteria, not commonly sustained in Test cricket over long periods.

Thoughts? Where does he sit in the pantheon of all-rounders?

I guess it kind of depends on how you perceive what makes a good or great all-rounder. For me they should be attacking/aggressive/flamboyant/gutsy and charismatic types - capable of frightening the shit out of the opponents with either suit.

And they should be able to turn a game in a short period of time and make a game jump into life. So for me - Botham, Imran, Sobers and more recently Freddie and currently, Stokes. They're the kind of all-action cricket heroes that you dreamt of being when you were a kid - no disrespect meant to Ashwin but I doubt whether he features in many kids dreams. Sure his stats are OK - but I think there's more to it than that. Oh and he covers the ground in the field like a sloth. Fielding is another area where the great all-rounders generally stand-out, as generally they are terrific athletes. Ashwin ain't one of those.

So for me, in the pantheon of all-rounders he's not even sitting in the house let alone at the top table.

By that barometer, (1)Kalis wouldn't necessarily get a look in as he wasn't most of those in the first paragraph. Yet, he's arguably one of the best of all time.

(2)Shakib easily the best of the current all rounders, imo. With due respect to Stokes, he has performed in about 2 or 3 matches. He may be Botham, he may even be Sobers, but all he is as of now is too early to judge. While I agree Ashwin is not even in the house, (3)I'd say Stokes, so far, doesn't even belong in the same district.

(1) Yes
(2) Double Yes
(3) Quadruple Yes

As posts go, the one you're quoting very high on the insanity stakes.

tricycle wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

lardbucket wrote:In Tests, he is averaging > 30 with the bat (with a couple of centuries) and < 30 with the ball, after a fair sample size now.

These are tough criteria, not commonly sustained in Test cricket over long periods.

Thoughts? Where does he sit in the pantheon of all-rounders?

I guess it kind of depends on how you perceive what makes a good or great all-rounder. For me they should be attacking/aggressive/flamboyant/gutsy and charismatic types - capable of frightening the shit out of the opponents with either suit.

And they should be able to turn a game in a short period of time and make a game jump into life. So for me - Botham, Imran, Sobers and more recently Freddie and currently, Stokes. They're the kind of all-action cricket heroes that you dreamt of being when you were a kid - no disrespect meant to Ashwin but I doubt whether he features in many kids dreams. Sure his stats are OK - but I think there's more to it than that. Oh and he covers the ground in the field like a sloth. Fielding is another area where the great all-rounders generally stand-out, as generally they are terrific athletes. Ashwin ain't one of those.

So for me, in the pantheon of all-rounders he's not even sitting in the house let alone at the top table.

By that barometer, Kalis wouldn't necessarily get a look in as he wasn't most of those in the first paragraph. Yet, he's arguably one of the best of all time.

Shakib easily the best of the current all rounders, imo. With due respect to Stokes, he has performed in about 2 or 3 matches. He may be Botham, he may even be Sobers, but all he is as of now is too early to judge. While I agree Ashwin is not even in the house, I'd say Stokes, so far, doesn't even belong in the same district.

You're right about Kallis - and stats wise I guess he certainly should be given serious consideration as perhaps being the best. I'd inadvertently neglected him. In terms of him matching up to those criteria I set out I'd argue that he did fulfil a fair few of them. In his early days, as a bowler, my recall is that he was certainly an attacking weapon and had real pace and aggression to call upon that could put the frighteners on the oppo batsmen. And I'd certainly suggest he was a gutsy guy. Flamboyancy and charimsa were perhaps less apparent.

I don't know enough about Shakib to pass any informed comment on, so I won't. Re: Stokes, yep he's not anywhere near yet deserving of the mantle of a great but he surely is up there in the good category. In what is a fledgling career he has, as you have suggested, already put in some head-turning and match winning performances in circumstances where either the team has just been dire/pathetic/abject (take your pick) or several individuals have been found wanting or just not able to deliver a moment of inspiration to lift the team.

taipan wrote:

tricycle wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

lardbucket wrote:In Tests, he is averaging > 30 with the bat (with a couple of centuries) and < 30 with the ball, after a fair sample size now.

These are tough criteria, not commonly sustained in Test cricket over long periods.

Thoughts? Where does he sit in the pantheon of all-rounders?

I guess it kind of depends on how you perceive what makes a good or great all-rounder. For me they should be attacking/aggressive/flamboyant/gutsy and charismatic types - capable of frightening the shit out of the opponents with either suit.

And they should be able to turn a game in a short period of time and make a game jump into life. So for me - Botham, Imran, Sobers and more recently Freddie and currently, Stokes. They're the kind of all-action cricket heroes that you dreamt of being when you were a kid - no disrespect meant to Ashwin but I doubt whether he features in many kids dreams. Sure his stats are OK - but I think there's more to it than that. Oh and he covers the ground in the field like a sloth. Fielding is another area where the great all-rounders generally stand-out, as generally they are terrific athletes. Ashwin ain't one of those.

So for me, in the pantheon of all-rounders he's not even sitting in the house let alone at the top table.

By that barometer, Kalis wouldn't necessarily get a look in as he wasn't most of those in the first paragraph. Yet, he's arguably one of the best of all time.

Shakib easily the best of the current all rounders, imo. With due respect to Stokes, he has performed in about 2 or 3 matches. He may be Botham, he may even be Sobers, but all he is as of now is too early to judge. While I agree Ashwin is not even in the house, I'd say Stokes, so far, doesn't even belong in the same district.

Agreed on Stokes. Personally I would not have Freddie in there either.

Surely Freddie is worth of 'good' status - I hadn't narrowed it down to 'great'. Anyway, you'd want him in the house as I'm sure he'd help get the party started.

To be classed as good you really have to perform consistently over a sustained period. Stokes hasn't as of yet. Someone to keep in and nurture, but someone who can't be held in the highest of regard.

Brass Monkey wrote:To be classed as good you really have to perform consistently over a sustained period. Stokes hasn't as of yet. Someone to keep in and nurture, but someone who can't be held in the highest of regard.

Fair point.

How about promising rather than good then?

Although if we're going by the current filth he's lobbing down at Lord's then 'promising' would be wildly OTT.

Oh yeah, potentially better than most - he's put in some match-winning performances, which is what you want. I'd like to see him average 40 with the bat and sub-30 with the ball in a couple of series, rather than promise to do so

Ashwin's star continues to rise. Almost imperceptibly, still.

He and Stokes continue to keep on improving. Stokes on this tour has been particularly impressive. With Shakib srill lurking around, it's not the worst time for test all rounders.

lardbucket wrote:In Tests, he is averaging > 30 with the bat (with a couple of centuries) and < 30 with the ball, after a fair sample size now.

These are tough criteria, not commonly sustained in Test cricket over long periods.

Thoughts? Where does he sit in the pantheon of all-rounders?

UPDATE; much larger sample size

> 35 with the bat
< 25 with the ball

(and will improve further when Australia visits early next year)