A slightly idiosyncratic view. The joy of test cricket is that it has so many layers, all working at the same time. A supreme innings is a jewel which can be appreciated in itself regardless of which team happened to win in the final account. If ‘Gary’ Lyon had gathered the ball, Oz would have won by 1 run. The magnificence of Stokes’ knock is not diminished one iota by this. Fine if you disagree. Presumably, you’ll be comforted by your Mumbai Indians/Somerset half ‘n halfer. The 2 beasts of the modern game.
Ultimately the Aussies couldn't handle the heat of a typical British summers day and 2 ginger Brits could. A special sporting moment.
I do disagree. My beef is with labelling it “possibly the best innings ever seen in Test cricket”. To me, that should mean that it means something long-term, rather than just being a consolation prize. Series-changing, as Botham ‘81 was. Of course, today’s innings may yet be so, but we don’t yet know. I don’t think that is an idiosyncratic position to take at all. You’re unusually irascible tonight. Do you think it was “possibly the best innings ever seen in Test cricket”? I would say it is definitely in the top 10 best innings by an England player. Probably top 3 in my lifetime. But “best ever” in all Test matches? That’s a very big call, and I stand by my view that if it ends up meaning diddley squat in the context of the series as a whole, it’s very difficult to label it in that way. I’d be very happy if we were to revisit this discussion in a couple of weeks... And my view might well change if the series goes the right way. (And yes, I acknowledge that the word “possibly” allows for numerous get-out clauses...).
I think I had about 5% hope when I posted this. Desperately wanted it to be higher but well it looked game over. It looked game over a lot even today. What can you say about the drama? Unbelievable. Wonderful. Unreal. One of the best innings and definitely arguably the best in the circumstances. Even my dad who has no real interest was as tense as me when the match reached its dendenouement
The Cup semi-Final against Palace; the Final against City; the missed Championship against Sheffield Wed, etc., etc., etc...
I don't really get this argument at all. I've no real feel yet for where exactly Stokes' innings might stand in the pantheon of 'great test match innings'. It will obviously be right up there though. Including for the way he managed a last wicket partnership of 76 with a No.11 who only scored 1! Detracting from it would be that he should have been given out lbw just short of the target. The innings can obviously be judged most favourably in the context of the match. And, in the context of the series, we are now back in with a chance of regaining the ashes whereas, if Stokes hadn't played his innings, Australia would now have retained them. So Stokes has given us a fighting chance. Our tails should now be up thanks to him. Whether we do indeed now go on to win the ashes a la Botham and Flintoff or lose out should surely have no bearing on consideration of Stokes' innings. The future can't re-write history.
It’s very rare that I miss living in the UK. A great test match is one of few things that gets me just a little homesick. What an innings.
I'm another that does not agree with you. Stokes innings is not diminished if he were to hit 4 ducks in the last 2 games. This would effect his series not this match, not this one innings. Thats the way test cricket works. Theres only a few players who have series of brilliance, Warne, Mcgrath, Lara, Cook with his 2010 ashes series. Stokes innings was a large ton, in do or die circumstances, against a bowling attack that knocked us over for 67, he got lumped on the head early on, he had to adapt from surviving (3 runs in 73 balls) to partnering bairstow to batting with the tail, to mastering the strike with Leach and smashing it to all corners. It was a great knock. What l do agree with you on is whether it's the greatest ever innings. There have been innings to save games that are more attritional, there have been better innings score wise, there have been chanceless double hundreds, there have been more backs to the wall innings. Stokes should have been out LBW 2 short. He lost it in the end where Leach should have been run out and actually the ball was doing little, Aussies bowling attack lacks a great great bowler and the pitch was playing as well as it had all match. However Stokes showed a variety of technique, attritional battling qualities with spirit and composure. It's making Wisdens top 100 list, but not sure best ever innings is right. Goal of the season is subjective and so is this though.
I disagree about the Aussie bowling attack. Pat Cummins in the ranked no.1 in the world this year. Nathan Lyon is now their third highest wicket taker of all time. Hazelwood is extremely accurate. I think in years to come they may well be viewed as a 'great' bowling attack. Re:Stokes getting some luck. Doesn't every batsman need a bit of luck in order to score big? He was Flintoff-esque yesterday.
Good debate. I have no issue with labelling Stokes’ innings as “great”. I have more of an issue with it being called “possibly the greatest”. That’s in part because he should clearly have been given out, but more, thinking about this again, because I find it difficult to accord that honour to something before some time has elapsed and we can reflect upon it more objectively and place it in an historical context. Perhaps that’s just me. Whatever, it certainly cheered me up after Saturday afternoon...
I see both sides of the ‘bowling’ argument. It is undoubtedly a very very good bowling unit. Each bowler is solid in what they offer for sure - but I do agree that it lacks anyone ‘great’. It has no one that you could chuck the ball to and be absolutely certain of a great spell or to take wickets. As many wickets as Lyon has got in his career, his bowling has been ragged outside of the 1st test for the most part. Cummins may be No.1 but he didn’t even threaten in those final overs yesterday - boy do the Aussies wish they had Starc bowling Yorkers at Leach yesterday! I think Stokes innings will live long into the history of the game. On the front page of all the papers this morning - not easy for cricket. Famous figures have been mentioning it on social media etc etc. The result of the series won’t diminish it. Calling it ‘the best ever’?? I think that’s in the eye of the beholder and so many subjective things come into play for people. For some it could be, for others will have seen better. But when people like Boycott, Willis, Ponting etc (who have been up close and personal to some of the best efforts ever) label it the greatest they’ve ever seen, then I think it’s fair to hold it right up amongst the greatest.
Good point about the lbw, but I think there are many historical "great" innings where had the TV technology been available to over-rule an umpires decision, then many would have cut many short. The fact is, if the umpire cannot be sure in his own mind, then he couldn't have given it, and the Aussies had frivolously wasted a challenge a few balls earlier. They panicked! Michael Vaughan said the Ashes have gone back to Aussie after their 67 all-out in the first innings. Stokes was seeing wickets given away all around him and knew that this would definitely be the case if he got out. The Ashes would be lost. Archer going for unlikely glory didn't help, but then Stokes had to score 70 runs with only the number 11 batsman, effectively on his own. He scored 8 sixes and 11 fours, nearly a century in boundaries. The concentration needed to try and keep the strike was immense. Bothams innings was brilliant too, but he had excellent help from two of his tailenders who, if I remember correctly scored almost hundred between them, and then the result also depended on a batting collapse from the Aussies in their final innings. It was on terrestrial TV and it just took everyone's breath away at the time. For me, that innings wouldn't have been diminished had we not won the Ashes that year. But Beefy is still my favourite cricketer ever, by a mile. He came in an era where the players were mostly "typical" cricket players, older, traditional and staid. He was like a breath of fresh air in rocking the establishment and bit of a hero of mine. But, considering the circumstances, Stokes's effort wins for me.
Its subjective isnt it. Stokes innings probably the best in recent history that l remember. Gooch 154, carrying bat in 1985? Walsh, Ambrose, Marshall and Patterson! Dean Jones 210 v India, lost 8kg in the heat with dehydration and dehli belly. Eddie Hemmings 95 as nightwatchman in Sydney. Lara's 375? Bothams 1981 of course. Although Willis won that, he couldnt have got there without Beefy's knock. Cricket is the only sport where you and play for that length of time under such conditions.
I don't have much love for either of Lara's big innings. Both disgracefully benign batting pitches, the 400 littered with questionable umpiring and both matches being draws. A brilliant brilliant player but those innings always feel 'by design', a little like breaking a running world record by having a pace maker.
No that's not right. Any innings can only be judged in the context of then and there. Whether we win or lose from here doesn't change THAT innings in THAT context. To play that responsively for the first 70 odd balls, then play that way with 9 wickets gone, knowing that if he fell the ashes was gone, was simply astonishing. So much riding on every ball. All that changes with time is the subsequent importance of the innings. If we now lose the ashes it becomes pretty unimportant, if we win, it was utterly vital. Conversely, when Botham was out for his blistering 100 at Headingly no-one knew how important the innings would become. There was no tension when he started, just misery ! It was a brilliant innings but it became so important because of Willis' 8 wickets. It then became more important in the context of the match and series but it didn't become better, as the context of his innings at the time didn't change.
The term “greatest innings” suggests both the achievement of the here and now and the subsequent importance to me. But as I post above, I think that’s because I have trouble assessing anything as “greatest” (as distinct from “great”) except through the lens of history. Maybe others don’t.
Yes i think that's the difference. I think the greatness of what Ben did yesterday can be measured only against the context yesterday and will get less or more important as time passes. In comparison, I think that Botham innings would be just as great if 1/England were batting last, 2/the ashes would be lost if he got out, and 3/ he'd not got himself out but instead hit the winning runs.
Much better than Flintoff. Freddie deserves most credit for his fast bowling & for enduring James Corden over extended periods.
Maybe the term ‘the greatest’ isn’t particularly useful or helpful. Smacks a little of those Jimmy Carr countdown shows of the early 2000s. It was always Bohemian Rhapsody at #1 regardless of the question being asked.
My favourite is still Cook in Brisbane in 2010. OK we didn't win that test but it reversed the momentum and set us up for the series. I'm biased because I was there to witness it. Phenomenal
I watched every ball, from London. But don’t forget Belly’s 70 in the first innings. Without that, we’d have 150 & mental disintegration would have been inevitable.
Only problem being he became a wine making know it all non-dom fatty who spends most of his time on a fancy yacht with his rich mates. At least Freddie advertised clothes for a 'fat blokes' brand.
