Imagine the hype if Flintoff produced the kind of knock Afridi just did.

[Jono]

Really so a batting average of 22 really stands up to much.........Decent bowler mind you.

What? Where did I say he's a great ODI batsman? Or even a very good one?

I know his average is ordinary, I stated it in this thread on the front page, but all I'm suggesting is he's unlikely to be the worst player to play 100 ODIs.

 

[Richard]

Good fielder, good bowler, often devastating batsman in ODIs (to be fair, often useless too)... I very much doubt he's one of the worst to play 100 ODIs.

Substitute "decent" and "reasonable". His bowling's certainly not good, and his fielding is only good by Pakistani standards.

 

[deeps]

Remember, he was initially picked as a spinner.

His batting, although hit and miss, is a double edged sword.

Without his onslaught, Pakistan would not have got anywehre near 350. Say,they made about 300.

South Africa would have walked out there alot ore confident, with a much lower asking run rate. They would have came out to bat differently, more sensibily, and had a much better chance of winning.

And then he capped it off with 3 wickets at an economy of 2.32 an over.

Almost pulled off a blinder of a catch in the first few overs too.

How is he the worst player to have played 200 ODI's? or even 100??

Sure, u don't like his way of batting. His average of 22 is reflected in his style of batting. His 50's and 100's show his worth. Not to mention the countless 30's and 40's he's made in absolutely no time, that's turned a match on its head.

I remember a match against India a few years ago, Pakistan were about 7 down, required 7.5 an over with about 5 overs to spare. Pretty even contest yeh? India have the edge.

Enter Afridi. one irfan pathan over went for about 25 runs, and the following over for about 16.. afridi got out for 30 odd, but pakistan comfortably won .

 

[Jono]

I remember a match against India a few years ago, Pakistan were about 7 down, required 7.5 an over with about 5 overs to spare. Pretty even contest yeh? India have the edge.

Enter Afridi. one irfan pathan over went for about 25 runs, and the following over for about 16.. afridi got out for 30 odd, but pakistan comfortably won .

Champions Trophy 2004, remember it like it was yesterday actually.

Afridi, by the strictest definition of the phrase, took the game right out of India's hands.

I don't like Afridi as a person, but I appreciate him as a unique character and player of this great sport of ours. Do I rate players like Kallis and Dravid better? Hell yeah, but that doesn't mean every player has to be like them.

 

[deeps]

For the one that said Afridi's test average was 'inflated'

What that shows.. Yes, he gets out below 10 fairly often, but he makes decent scores often too.

Sure, not the most reliable guy around, but still good none the less

 

[Richard]

What? Where did I say he's a great ODI batsman? Or even a very good one?

I know his average is ordinary, I stated it in this thread on the front page, but all I'm suggesting is he's unlikely to be the worst player to play 100 ODIs.

OK, the only one who immidiately comes to my mind is Ricardo Powell...

Here are cap-lists... see if you can find a worse player with 100 caps than those 2 in here:
Aus
England doesn't have one - the only possible candidate is Paul Collingwood
Ind
NZ
Pak
SA
SL (I suppose there's a case for Dilhara Fernando)
WI
Zim (I suppose there's a case for Guy Whittall, but IMO that'd be harsh)
So... nominations?

 

[Richard]

Remember, he was initially picked as a spinner.

His batting, although hit and miss, is a double edged sword.

Without his onslaught, Pakistan would not have got anywehre near 350. Say,they made about 300.

South Africa would have walked out there alot ore confident, with a much lower asking run rate. They would have came out to bat differently, more sensibily, and had a much better chance of winning.

And then he capped it off with 3 wickets at an economy of 2.32 an over.

Almost pulled off a blinder of a catch in the first few overs too.

How is he the worst player to have played 200 ODI's? or even 100??

Sure, u don't like his way of batting. His average of 22 is reflected in his style of batting. His 50's and 100's show his worth. Not to mention the countless 30's and 40's he's made in absolutely no time, that's turned a match on its head.

I remember a match against India a few years ago, Pakistan were about 7 down, required 7.5 an over with about 5 overs to spare. Pretty even contest yeh? India have the edge.

Enter Afridi. one irfan pathan over went for about 25 runs, and the following over for about 16.. afridi got out for 30 odd, but pakistan comfortably won .

And there are about 100 club batsmen out there who could do the same... if you gave them 30 or 40 chances to do so.

 

[Richard]

For the one that said Afridi's test average was 'inflated'

What that shows.. Yes, he gets out below 10 fairly often, but he makes decent scores often too.

Sure, not the most reliable guy around, but still good none the less

The point there is that he's usually dropped after just 2 or 3 bad Tests, to avoid making even more of a fool of Pakistan than he already has.

Were he to play more often, and fail where he's succeeded, his average would be considerably lower.

 

[deeps]

A.Campbell - played 188 games as an opener.. averaged 30.50... So a SPECIALIST batsman, played 188 matches, and averages 8 runs more than afridi with the bat. Afridi is a good bowler, and an awesome fielder. Makes up for the 8 runs difference... Remember, you said worst PLAYER, not worst batsman.

Venkatesh Prasad - Opening bowler, averaged 32.30 with the ball, can't bat... So this guy averages 3 less than afridi with the ball, but can't hold a bat to save his life.

Robin Singh..136 matches... batting average 25.95, bowling average 43.26..... All rounder... avereges all of 2 runs above him with the bat... bowling is about 6 -7 above.

Gavin Larsen - bowling average 35.39, batting of 14... again, can't bat, similar bowling averages.

Azhar mahmood - batting:18 bowling:38.73.... afridi has better batting and bowling averages

Dharmasena - batting: 22.62 bowling:36.21

Gurusinha - Batting: 28.27 bowling: 52.07

Roshan Mahanama - 29.60 - doesnt bowl.



Not to mention the WAY he scores his runs, is far more destructive than any of the above... Sure, some players are hard done by, such as Gavin Larson who was infact a good bowler etc.


But after 100 matches, yo'ud think the averages would even out to a fairly accurate level. So yeh, we perceive larson as a much better bowler than afridi..but really, was he?

Yeh, there's other factors to take into account blah blah blah, the fact of the matter is, he's certainly not the worst to 100 matches, not even close.

 

[Richard]

Anyone who's prepared even to list bowling-averages doesn't really know much about ODI cricket (as you yourself even admitted in the Larsen case - exactly the same applies to Dharmasena).

The fact that you list Alistair Campbell as an OPENING batsman shows how much you know about that. Campbell was a middle-order batsman who sometimes opened. And he was actually very far from the wost ODI batsman you'll ever see, plenty and plenty better than Afridi could ever dream of being, and the fact that he doesn't bowl doesn't come close to reducing the deficit.

Robin Singh mightn't have been the best all-rounder the game's ever seen, but again he was a damn sight better than Afridi simply because he wasn't someone who was expected to bat anywhere, he was always a lower-order biffer. He was probably a better bowler than Afridi, too.

Mahanama, Gurasinha, Mahmood and Prasad were all far from top-class ODI players. But nor could they be said not to have been (with the exception of Mahmood) important cogs in their sides. There isn't too much between Afridi and Mahmood, though I've occasionally wondered what Mahmood might have done had he ever got the chances up the order that Razzaq did.

 

[shortpitched713]

Anyone who's prepared even to list bowling-averages doesn't really know much about ODI cricket

Isn't the corollary to that that anyone who takes an excessive interest in a player's batting average doesn't know a whole lot about one day cricket. I mean, I bet if Boycott played one day cricket he'd average 45+, but I couldn't possibly see him classified as a great one day bat. The rate at which Afridi scores his runs does matter. Its ridiculous to discount that because hes inconsistent, because there are other batsmen who are, and its ridiculous to discount it because you hate his batting style, because it is effective at getting quick runs when he fires.

 

[The Baconator]

Afridi hits 77 off 35 and gets all this, and Mark Boucher's 78 off 39 gets nothing.

 

[shortpitched713]

Afridi hits 77 off 35 and gets all this, and Mark Boucher's 78 off 39 gets nothing.

Thats a better strike rate for Afridi mate! Are you literate!!!11

 

[Pup Clarke]

Thats a better strike rate for Afridi mate! Are you literate!!!11

Mate,he's not talking about the strike rate.He's saying that no praise has come for Boucher and it was a very similar innings.Agree with The Baconator there.

 

[silentstriker]

Were he to play more often, and fail where he's succeeded, his average would be considerably lower.

That doesn't make any sense. If Bradman had 'failed where he had succeeded', his average would be lower too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Afridi hits 77 off 35 and gets all this, and Mark Boucher's 78 off 39 gets nothing.

Mark Boucher doesn't have a very dull troll luring the gullible masses into pointless debates.

 

[grecian]

Hey unfair!!

He must be the best trolling fan ever, he even gets banned at the same time as his hero

 

[Richard]

Isn't the corollary to that that anyone who takes an excessive interest in a player's batting average doesn't know a whole lot about one day cricket. I mean, I bet if Boycott played one day cricket he'd average 45+, but I couldn't possibly see him classified as a great one day bat. The rate at which Afridi scores his runs does matter. Its ridiculous to discount that because hes inconsistent, because there are other batsmen who are, and its ridiculous to discount it because you hate his batting style, because it is effective at getting quick runs when he fires.

When he fires being once every 15 innings' or so, no I don't care how quickly that innings comes when it does.

Yes, SRs are important as far as batting's concerned but someone who averages 22 can have a SR of 200, they're still extremely poor.

 

[Richard]

That doesn't make any sense. If Bradman had 'failed where he had succeeded', his average would be lower too.

OK, not best phrased.

I meant had as many chances to fail as to succeed. For most people, if they average 60-odd in, say, 4 games, they'll buy themselves another 6 or 7 Tests to have a bad period before they get dropped, but Afridi only buys himself a couple because he looks so humiliating to the team when he fails. Hence it usually only takes 2 or 3 bad innings for him to go. But the story is different domestically and in ODIs, hence his averages are lower.

 

[Prince EWS]

OK, not best phrased.

I meant had as many chances to fail as to succeed. For most people, if they average 60-odd in, say, 4 games, they'll buy themselves another 6 or 7 Tests to have a bad period before they get dropped, but Afridi only buys himself a couple because he looks so humiliating to the team when he fails. Hence it usually only takes 2 or 3 bad innings for him to go. But the story is different domestically and in ODIs, hence his averages are lower.

Spot on. Well explained.