Stokes is probably good enough to play as a bowler only, certainly not quite there in the batting.
I think he needs time, probably a number seven at best. I'm not convinced he offers a lot to the bowling.
I mean 2/70, 0/20, 1/63 and 1/65 are very good figures for a part-timer, not so handy when you want someone who could win you matches with their bowling.
If it were to fill in overs where England want to play two spinners even then I'd question the need for a fifth bowler, if the pitch is going to turn enough to warrant two spinners then surely they'd be bowling 50-60 or more overs in a day anyway and a Root or Pietersen would fill in any spare overs to rest say Anderson and Broad.........................
I reckon he'd be a fine option for ODIs, I've long maintained England use way too many of the Test squad for ODIs. He is only 22, but that doesn't automatically mean he'll become a Flintoff or better. County cricket isn't a great measure of someone's ability to bat at Test level, especially when it comes to "all-rounders".
As War I think it was listed out England's woes with all-rounders, seeking the solution instead of accepting players picked weren't good enough. He gives Flintoff more credit than I ever would, Flintoff had a few great series but was overall a disappointment in terms of what he could have delivered.
And I don't believe he did give England balance, it just meant we kept playing the wheelie bin (Giles) who averaged a terrible 40.60 with the ball for England in Tests, and it was a lot worse against most top sides - 56.95 vs Australia, 50.18 vs India, 55.63 vs South Africa.
It was only decent against Pakistan because of one series in 00/01 (17 wkts @ 24.12) and against Sri Lanka for one in 03/04 (18 wkts @ 29.94)
Many maintain Flintoff couldn't operate as part of a four man attack, but there were ways and means. England wanted to include a spinner, this has been the case since Gooch was captain who was very pragmatic and realised six batsmen and four bowlers is the best way forward. Shame for him was Caddick only hit the Test scene in 1993, Gough in 1994 and Cork in 1995, and for some reason they only played something like 37 times together
Back to the ODI dilemma, Stokes played in the ODIs in the summer averaging a modest 19.00 with bat and decent 28.17 with ball. I think England rested a few key players then, but if you look at the make-up of the series vs New Zealand then Trott, Bell, Anderson, Root, Cook, Bresnan, Swann and Broad of the regulars in Tests all played so that's EIGHT out of an XI, albeit Bresnan is/was the least regular and I think Pietersen was injured which would have made it nine.
The only real ODI "specialists" were Woakes, Dernbach, Tredwell, Buttler and arguably Morgan who is often a 'turn to' Test player. I've long maintained some of the Test players aren't so fantastic in ODIs that we shouldn't look at non-Test playing alternatives, although I draw a line at the likes of Yardy, Shight and that kind of bits n pieces player.
At least if we get players like Stokes established in ODIs they could be better prepared if England needed them as Test fill-ins. While the format does produce some variances, the quality of bowling etc is much the same and it is intense so better preparation than (just) county cricket, "performance squad" tours etc and of course being thrown in at the deep end as Stokes has been.
