Ben Stokes was England’s best player when they lost 5-0 in Australia four years ago as their highest runscorer and leading wicket-taker over the four Tests he played.
That was in his debut Test series, and since then Stokes has improved massively as a cricketer to the point he is now arguably as important to England as their captain and best batsman, Joe Root.
If that strikes you as an extravagant claim, consider that over the past two calendar years Stokes has averaged 45 with the bat and 28 with the ball in Tests. He has been two players in one over that period – a prolific top-six batsman and a highly effective pace bowler.
Punctuating his 19 Tests during that time are a cluster of truly commanding performances with both bat and ball. Most famously Stokes blasted 258 from 198 balls against South Africa in Capetown, rescuing England from a poor position at 5-223.
(AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)
A few Tests later, in Bangladesh, Stokes produced a very different but equally important knock. He saved England from a likely defeat by scoring a gritty 85 on a turning deck in the second innings after his team had collapsed to 5-62. He topped off this man-of-the-match performance with six wickets.
The next month, in India, Stokes grafted to 128 in the first Test, made 70 in the second Test and took a five-for in the third match. Then, in England’s just-completed home summer, Stokes scored two tons as well as an extraordinary haul of 6-22 against the West Indies.
As a batsman, Stokes has shown the ability to either vaporise an opponent when England are on top or haul his team out of the flames. With the ball, he has become a man Root regularly turns to when he needs to conjure a wicket. Then there’s Stokes’ bravado, a character trait which is easily lampooned and derided but one which can be crucial to a cricket team, energising teammates when they are flat.
There has been a lot of analysis about how England will try to maintain the balance of their line-up if Stokes does not play in the Ashes due to his alleged involvement in a street brawl. They will essentially lose both a specialist batsman and a frontline bowler.
What appears most likely is that England will replace Stokes with a batsman, either James Vince or Gary Ballance.
(AP Photo/Rob Griffith)
The issue then is that not only do England lose Stokes’ potent bowling but he’s also replaced by a significantly lesser batsman. Vince has averaged just 19 with the bat in his seven Tests despite all of them being played at home against the ordinary bowling attacks of Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
Ballance, meanwhile, made an extraordinary start to his Test career, piling up 1019 runs at 68 in his first ten Tests. Since then, he has floundered, averaging just 19 from his past 13 Tests despite ten of those matches being in England. So during roughly the same period Stokes averaged 45 across all conditions, his potential replacements averaged less than half that despite playing most or all of their cricket at home.
If either of them play in the Ashes and Stokes misses out, I would expect that trend to continue and for them to average in the Ashes about half what Stokes would. Now, a mathematician I am not, but to me that means that should Stokes not play, England will have lost one bowler as well as half a batsman.
To further underline the value of Stokes in this Ashes, bear in mind he is the only cricketer in the England squad who has a better Test record away than at home. Stokes averages 36 with the bat and 32 with the ball away from home, including three tons and two five-fors. The ability to excel on the road is exceedingly rare among modern Test cricketers.
To lose such a player in an Ashes series in Australia would cripple England.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
"Anyone who thinks either marsh should be selected has rocks in their head" To be fair, Shaun is actually in very good form, and is finally demanding selection based on form, rather than technique and surname. Mitch is probably not ready yet but is definitely one for the future. His long form batting is improving, while he is an instant selection for the National One Day team (when bowling as well). Mitch's One Day form as an all-rounder is superb, even better than Stokes. For now, Stokes has him comfortably covered in the Test format.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
I'm thinking (and hoping) they will take a punt on Bancroft as keeper/opener. It's a big call, but I don't think he'd let them down.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Seems like CA might even be listen to us as they have now linked the Audio and video of the WA game today.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Shakib and Ashwin are the best Test all-rounders in the world in Asian conditions but I'd take Stokes for Tests played outside Asia.
Big Daddy
Guest
Anyone who thinks either marsh should be selected has rocks in their head. Their papers should be stamped to never be picked again . But then again their name is marsh.
Don Freo
Guest
No less, Mike, than Stokes is a batter who bowls. Their numbers are quite similar. The number say that Starc is an all rounder...or that Stokes is a batsman who bowls.
Don Freo
Guest
When he finally gets them out. He gorgeously mutilates the language but there is no one on the planet that has a bad word to say about Colin Minson.
Don Freo
Guest
Surely after Wade's 5th fold in 5 innings today, it is only a choice between Nevill, Carey and Bancroft. George Bailey is making a last minute reminder.
matth
Guest
Stokes MVP: Most Valuable Puncher. Thanks, I'm here all week. He is irreplaceable for them and it remains to be seen whether their problems with Stokes and injuries will crush them or galvanise them. A lot depends on the captain, coach and wicket keeper to set the tone.
Mike Dugg
Guest
Mitch is not an all rounder. Bowler who bats a bit.
JimmyB
Guest
"In addition, he's no mug in the field." Well quite, in fact I'd go as far to say that he's the best fielder in the world right now.
Curious George
Guest
Wade Gone! for 5 paltry runs! Hopefully this will mean Carey or Bancroft can waltz into the Test side now :)
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Squad announced Friday Chris.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think that's pretty much what I'd be expecting. Ronan has stated England would most likely replace Stokes with a batsman. I think that having just 3 quicks plus Ali on Australian pitches looks a very weak bowling lineup. Since Ali is an allrounder already, and Woakes can bat okay, my general though, as expressed on this site many times, is that they are likely to pick the fourth fast bowler (probably giving Crane his debut instead of the fourth quick when they get to the SCG) which will then give them a more normal looking lineup, with 5 batsmen, one allrounder, one keeper and 4 bowlers. Having Stokes and Ali as two allrounders has allowed them to bat extra deep. I think they'll lose that rather than go to only four real bowlers. Unless Root plans on bowling himself and Vince more than just the odd couple of overs here and there.
James
Guest
Stokes replacement would also most likely be a much less reliable fieldsman.
Rissole
Guest
It's a pity they don't sync up. Fortunately Minno can paint a picture with words.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Don, that's a pretty big IF there! So far it's pretty much been a case of none of them playing well. Hence the big issue.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I actually don't know when the squad will be announced. I've heard people suggest it will be around day 3 of the next shield round. Not waiting until the end. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they pick a squad with one or two extra players that's then culled after that Shield round finishes if they are still not 100% sure on anything. My personal thoughts? For the keeper, I would be tempted to take a punt on Bancroft. I think any of the prospective keepers presents a risk, and I don't think Bancroft is any less a risk than anyone. He was really neat behind the stumps in the last shield round, and even after keeping for 2 innings and carrying his bat through the first innings, still seemed almost fresh towards the end of his second innings. So physically I think he's fine to keep through entire test matches. I don't particularly like any of the keeping options, but having to go for a choice between the bad choices I'd be tempted to go that way. For the number 6 spot, I think both Cartwright and Maxwell have been given some chance there, and done well enough in the limited chances to deserve at least a few more tests. So to an extent either would be a bit hard done by to miss out. So I think I would probably stick to one of those two rather than go for a "bolter" for the number 6 spot. I'm still a bit torn on which one. Again, both have made some case for the spot, but both are reasonably weak cases. There is no clear stand-out and to some extent both can lay claim to being "incumbent" and being that incumbent they should get the chance to start this series. Maxwell infuriates me a bit like Mitch Johnson used to prior to his awesome comeback in that 5-0 Ashes. That is, you know they are capable of being amazing, but they do it way too infrequently.
rtp
Guest
Is that right? Could they seriously have a Stokes a Woakes and a Foakes in their team? Lillee caught Willey bowled Dilley Villi Manilli.
George
Guest
Vince's selection for the tour is farcical. Even at #6 let alone first drop.