I wouldn't speak in terms of better or worse as Stokes still has a good chunk of years of his career to play and they are used differently. Stokes worth as a bowler is not in the amount of wickets he takes at what price but he has the knack of doing things, making things possible, enabling others to do their thing, getting something out of a situation that others can't.Although Botham was clearly the better bowler
If you're picking an ideal England XI you'd have Stokes at 5, Botham at 6, Flintoff at 7 and Buttler at 8.I would take Stokes above the other two in my team anytime just for the very qualities he possesses above his fielding, bowling and batting. Don't get me wrong; Botham was a very very skilled bowler in his own right and was more of a front-line bowler than perhaps Stokes and Flintoff are/were and he had a lot more guile than perhaps Flintoff and Stokes but I would still want Stokes
Not much you can really do about that when one country happens to be producing the best playersYou're going to restart the age-old tradition of too many from one country here.
Keaton at 1, 2 and 3 the rest is Buttler all the way down!If you're picking an ideal England XI you'd have Stokes at 5, Botham at 6, Flintoff at 7 and Buttler at 8.
Hold on, there needs to be a place for multi-format specialist All Rounder Joe Denly.Keaton at 1, 2 and 3 the rest is Buttler all the way down!
Drinks and massage and Keaton Jennings Bottom Lip Support OfficerHold on, there needs to be a place for multi-format specialist All Rounder Joe Denly.
I would put my money on Archer coming in for Woakes and Anderson for Curran.So who will England give a place to in the quicks: Anderson, Broad, Archer? Woods? Curran? Woakes? Who gets in who misses out?
I'd go Woakes, Broad and Archer.So who will England give a place to in the quicks: Anderson, Broad, Archer? Woods? Curran? Woakes? Who gets in who misses out?