Precambrian
Banned
Wickramasinghe a good bowler? You must be joking. He was probably the worst bowler to play for Lanka. And stats here dont lie.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is Afridi the worst player to play over 100 Odi's
- Thread starter Xuhaib
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Exceedingly poor though Azhar Mahmood was, I've always considered him a better all-rounder than Afridi. Not least because Azhar's record over here in domestic cricket has always far outdone Afridi's. There's little between them in international cricket but at least Azhar did better at the next level down.
Not sure how their records compare in Pakistan domestic stuff.
thierry henry
International Coach
Yes, but who was a worse bowler for 100+ games?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, I never said he was a good bowler, just not a particularly poor one. And certainly he puts most seamers who've played for SL outside Vaas and Zoysa (and recently Maaalinga and Kulasekara) to shame.
Wickremasinghe >>>>> Eric Upashantha, Pulsathi Gunaratne, Ruchira Perera, Suresh Perera, Dilhara Fernando, RAP Nissanka, Ishara Amerasinghe, Chamila Gamage Lakshitha, Thilan Thushara, Charitha Buddhika Fernando, Ravindra Pushpakumara, Sujeewa de Silva, K Weeratne, Dulip Liyange, Dilhara Lokuhettage and (to date) Farveez Maharoof.
He was no World-beater but he was far from the worst you'll see.
Precambrian
Banned
DWTA. Unlike Azhar Mahmood, Afridi has learnt to adapt over the years. Even though his batting has only got worse, if there is such a thing, his bowling has picked up well, to the extent he is guaranteed a go in the side as a bowler alone. And Afridi has sometimes turned matches upside down with his strokeplay, which Mahmood seldom has.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Afridi. And he was a terrible batsman as well.
Precambrian
Banned
The ones in Bold are clearly better than him. And the others have hardly played enough international cricket to make a clearcut opinion of them. Wickramasinghe never deserved to play 100 matches imho. And he was not that economical also. No, Nothing looks good in his career record.
Precambrian
Banned
Disagree, Afridi is a much better bowler than Mahmood. I think you're making an opinion on Mahmood based on county performances.
Precambrian
Banned
Yes, his average is around 27 iirc. Not good, but not bad considering the period he played in. And comparing with the likes of Sehwag, who despite the roads, the bats, the powerplays still average only 32.
thierry henry
International Coach
How?
Afridi averages 35 to Wickramasinghe's 40, AND Afridi's e/r is imo better given the eras the players played in.
Also, Afridi takes more wickets per match despite being an all-rounder rather than a specialist bowler.
ALSO, whilst a mediocre batsman, he is still in the "handy category", albeit with a stupendous strike-rate and the ability to score centuries, so surely as an overall player he offers a lot more than Wickramasinghe!
ftr I am not an Afridi fan at all. And good on you for giving props to Kulasekara.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't think they are, they're all very poor. Dilhara Fernando especially - he, in fact, has a very strong case to be the owner of the title of this thread, if he hasn't played 100 games he surely soon will.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Was actually talking about Pramodya in that post, but yes, much of my opinion of Mahmood is based on English domestic cricket - as I say, they're both abysmal international cricketers.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, Wickremasinghe was regularly used as a death-bowler, a role he was totally dissuited to. Afridi isn't. The 1990s and 2000s as ODIs are broadly comparable, economy-rates have increased because bowling has gotten worse, pitches flatter and (to some extent) boundaries shorter. It's not a completely different game the way it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
Circumstances considered, Afridi <<<< Wickremasinghe as a bowler.
I think Wickremasinghe offers the ability to bowl a steady spell (provided no bowling is done at the death) and Afridi, well, will usually get some tap from any particularly good batting. Afridi is good for a few quick cheap overs against poor batting and the ability to knock-over the tail though.
And well, I just don't like Afridi as a batsman TBH, he's obviously better than Wickremasinghe was, but Afridi is not much more than a glorified tailender for the most part.
Wickremasinghe was actually quite Kulasekera-esque, just not quite as good.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
109 at the last count....though purely as a batsman Gus Logie and keith Arthurton also have dubious credentials for the West Indies.
thierry henry
International Coach
So you think, sans death duties, Wickramasinghe would have had a pretty good economy rate?
Probably have to agree to disagree tbh as I can't see any specialist bowlers with 100+ games whose numbers look nearly as bad as his. How a guy can average 40 over that long a period, including death bowling, is pretty staggering.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Based on calculations involving other similar bowlers (far from scientific - only about 4 or 5 of them) I'd reckon about 4.3-an-over or so. Certainly not outstanding, but decent enough. There's no way of giving an exact rate (the way there is for, for example, Mark Ealham) as CricInfo didn't carry ball-by-ball for more than the occasional game throughout most of his day.
Because he was a moderate wicket-taking-delivery bowler (hence his Test record), but ODIs aren't about wicket-taking, they're about economy. And he did a pretty decent job there - during the time his sort of bowling was suited to.
Certainly a waaaaaaaay better job than Dilhara Fernando, who has had a career of similar length for the same team.
tooextracool
International Coach
Powells played 109 ODIs. Hands down the worst ODI player to have played over 100 ODIs IMO. Played 2 innings of note in his entire career, one against India when he scored his only century, and the other against SA int he world cup in 2003.
tooextracool
International Coach
Wickremsinghe was a very poor bowler tbh, and his bowling was probably worse than Afridi. The only reason he ever played, was because SL were at one point effectively minnows and he was the best of a very bad bunch. Once Vaas and the others came along he was quickly dropped.
Personally, I think that when you take bowling, batting and fielding into consideration, Afridi was always worth his place in the ODI side because he could effectively change games in all those categories. His batting average may be low, but there are few players with an SR of over 100 and I think he is better suited to the role of batting in the lower order coming in towards the end of the innings than he was at the top.
Personally, I think that when you take bowling, batting and fielding into consideration, Afridi was always worth his place in the ODI side because he could effectively change games in all those categories. His batting average may be low, but there are few players with an SR of over 100 and I think he is better suited to the role of batting in the lower order coming in towards the end of the innings than he was at the top.