Is Afridi the worst player to play over 100 Odi's

[Uppercut]

Most of the time though that's because he scores 4 off 5 balls, rather than the (perhaps) 20 off 30 balls that some might do, then gets the odd 50 off 34 balls.

Afridi's strike-rate really does need to be assessed on an individual basis, not just looked at as a broad generalisation.

Yeah but when you're comparing his batting average to those others with a similar one, it's certainly worth noting how much quicker he scores his runs than they do. Obviously someone who scores more runs is better, but scoring at 23 with a huge strike rate>>>>>>scoring at 23 with a low strike rate.

 

[Fezza_8600]

He's in the team purely for his stamina and hitting ability, personally I don't think he's a timely or patient batsman, he's out there to achieve a milestone in 20 balls... Having said that, he can still perform very well, he just needs to think before taking such a massive backlift and smacking it.

He'd make test cricket look like a 20twenty game.

 

[Richard]

Yeah but when you're comparing his batting average to those others with a similar one, it's certainly worth noting how much quicker he scores his runs than they do. Obviously someone who scores more runs is better, but scoring at 23 with a huge strike rate>>>>>>scoring at 23 with a low strike rate.

23 maybe, but given Afridi routinely scores much lower scores (5 or 9 for instance), I honestly don't think there's a difference.

Repeated scores of 4 off 3 balls is really no different at all to 4 off 9 balls as far as the team's progress in the game is concerned, but the difference they make to a batsman's SR is huge.

 

[Uppercut]

23 maybe, but given Afridi routinely scores much lower scores (5 or 9 for instance), I honestly don't think there's a difference.

Repeated scores of 4 off 3 balls is really no different at all to 4 off 9 balls as far as the team's progress in the game is concerned, but the difference they make to a batsman's SR is huge.

Nah, 4 off 3 makes little to no difference to a batsman's strike rate. Afridi's played 249 ODI innings, scoring 5479 off roughly 4930 balls. The difference his scores of 5 off 3 make is minimal- ten of those are required to have the same effect on his strike-rate as one of his 29 fifties. The difference they make to his strike rate is anything but "huge".

And the value to the team of someone who scores a super-quick fifty every nine games batting at 6 isn't much, but it's more than someone who scores a snails-pace fifty every nine games at 6.

 

[Richard]

Nah, 4 off 3 makes little to no difference to a batsman's strike rate. Afridi's played 249 ODI innings, scoring 5479 off roughly 4930 balls. The difference his scores of 5 off 3 make is minimal- ten of those are required to have the same effect on his strike-rate as one of his 29 fifties. The difference they make to his strike rate is anything but "huge".

The point is that the 5 off 3 balls (or, say, 13 off 8) repeatedly makes a huge difference compared to what normal players would score, eg 13 off 20. If you look at all his sub-15 scores (as we can fairly safely say that 15 or less almost never makes any significant impact on the match) and work-out the strike-rate for them, I'd bet it'd be substantially different to a strike-rate for a similar set of scores for just about any other batsman.

And the value to the team of someone who scores a super-quick fifty every nine games batting at 6 isn't much, but it's more than someone who scores a snails-pace fifty every nine games at 6.

Afridi's more an opener than anything though. If he'd batted six or seven most games, his average would probably be even lower.

 

[Uppercut]

The point is that the 5 off 3 balls (or, say, 13 off 8) repeatedly makes a huge difference compared to what normal players would score, eg 13 off 20. If you look at all his sub-15 scores (as we can fairly safely say that 15 or less almost never makes any significant impact on the match) and work-out the strike-rate for them, I'd bet it'd be substantially different to a strike-rate for a similar set of scores for just about any other batsman.

Afridi's more an opener than anything though. If he'd batted six or seven most games, his average would probably be even lower.

Afridi's probably one player whose average wouldn't be affected by batting 6 or 7. He couldn't exactly play more irresponsibly if he tried.

The point i was making is, though, the players he's being compared with are players who score just as few if not less runs than Afridi does. So saying "ah but Bashar would be more likely to score 13 off 20 than Afridi" doesn't hold water at all, because in general, Afridi's scored more runs.

 

[Richard]

Afridi's probably one player whose average wouldn't be affected by batting 6 or 7. He couldn't exactly play more irresponsibly if he tried.

IIRR his opening average is about 4-5 runs higher than his at-five\six\seven one. There was a - fairly brief - time, around about 2000-2002-ish, where he actually played with some vague sense of actually wanting to score runs, before reverting to type.

The point i was making is, though, the players he's being compared with are players who score just as few if not less runs than Afridi does. So saying "ah but Bashar would be more likely to score 13 off 20 than Afridi" doesn't hold water at all, because in general, Afridi's scored more runs.

Not sure about that. I'm certainly not comparing him with Bangladeshis. No-one else, who is in the side (a ODI-standard side) principally or exclusively for batting, and has played 100 or more ODIs, has such a terrible batting record. Except Ricardo Powell.

These are those who've played 100 ODIs since 1990 whose batting is their principal reason for selection (wicketkeepers excluded - there's plenty of them - Rashid Latif, Mongia, Kaluwitharana, Healy, Moin Khan, Jacobs, Parore, McCullum, Boucher) and whose career batting-average is under 30:
Guy Whittall (20.28)
Ricardo Powell (23.32)
Shahid Afridi (23.78)
Craig McMillan (27.70)
Jimmy Adams (27.98)
Phil Simmons (28.24)
Tillikaratne Dilshan (28.35)
Asanka Gurasinha (28.82)
Wavell Hinds (28.96)

And Hinds and McMillan were both huge disappointments. Dilshan could still turn it around. Gurasinha and Adams simply weren't ODI players. Simmons is an interesting one. But Powell and Afridi stand-out in the crowd. Powell, however, was clearly far worse as he had no second bowstring.

 

[Uppercut]

You're actually rather convincing

Even so, there are circumstances where i'd love an Afridi. If i was picking one international cricketer to play for Bangladesh in ODIs, for instance, i'd have Afridi over a lot of much better players, because he can win a match with little help from anyone else.

 

[Richard]

Mohammad Ashraful isn't actually all that different from Afridi IMO, even though his wristspin is obviously far, far inferior. They're equally irresponsibly woeful batsmen whose shot-selection even when there is time to think leaves more to be desired than just about anyone.

Althrough Afridi's obviously far more brash and muscly, while Ashraful is far more diminutive, which means people are endeared to "aww, isn't he cute" Ashraful far more easily.

 

[Goughy]

Mohammad Ashraful isn't actually all that different from Afridi IMO, even though his wristspin is obviously far, far inferior. They're equally irresponsibly woeful batsmen whose shot-selection even when there is time to think leaves more to be desired than just about anyone.

Althrough Afridi's obviously far more brash and muscly, while Ashraful is far more diminutive, which means people are endeared to "aww, isn't he cute" Ashraful far more easily.

And his strike rate is 40 points lower

Dont really see the similarity apart from neither are particularly consistent (but the same could be said of any average or below batsman).

 

[Richard]

Haha, 40 lower, good grief.

You'd be hard-pressed to deny that they've both played any number of shockingly poor innings of a similar type though (playing premeditated dabs against seamers at 40-5 for example).

 

[Precambrian]

Haha, 40 lower, good grief.

You'd be hard-pressed to deny that they've both played any number of shockingly poor innings of a similar type though (playing premeditated dabs against seamers at 40-5 for example).

But atleast Afridi had a license, as long as his bowling helped him. With Ashraful, even when given captaincy, he has continued to be the same. And he doesnt have other skills to fall upon.

 

[andruid]

But atleast Afridi had a license, as long as his bowling helped him. With Ashraful, even when given captaincy, he has continued to be the same. And he doesnt have other skills to fall upon.

That Ashraful Fella is supposed to be able to bat

 

[Richard]

Well quite a few people seem to think he can, yeah, but I've never seen much to suggest he's any better than Afridi really.

 

[Julian87]

No way is Afridi the worst player. If he was a specialist bat, he'd be close to earning it, but his one day bowling is great IMO.

 

[Richard]

You know the day has come to something really bad when you hear Shahid Afridi described as a "great ODI bowler".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah I pretty much agree with TEC. Afridi's a pretty average player but he's not the worst you'll ever see and for most of his career has actually warranted a spot in the team and so on. In fact, at times he's been pretty good, though he's definitely the worst to play as many games as he has.

Powell was really pretty horrible. He only had one thing going for him which is that he was a pretty big hitter, but came off even less frequently than Afridi does, and less impressively, and he couldn't bowl which is a pretty major reason why Afridi isn't a total failure as an ODI player. He's a decent enough fill-in bowler in ODIs, something like a Symonds or a Collingwood. Powell the worst to play 100 IMO, by a distance.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah I pretty much agree with TEC. Afridi's a pretty average player but he's not the worst you'll ever see and for most of his career has actually warranted a spot in the team and so on. In fact, at times he's been pretty good, though he's definitely the worst to play as many games as he has.

Powell was really pretty horrible. He only had one thing going for him which is that he was a pretty big hitter, but came off even less frequently than Afridi does, and less impressively, and he couldn't bowl which is a pretty major reason why Afridi isn't a total failure as an ODI player. He's a decent enough fill-in bowler in ODIs, something like a Symonds or a Collingwood. Powell the worst to play 100 IMO, by a distance.

I see what you mean, but on the other hand i can't think of two more different bowlers than Collingwood and Afridi

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah. Well Afridi is actually a better ODI bowler than Collingwood IMO, was just an example.

 

[Julian87]

Afridi is a better ODI bowler than quite a few spinners plying their trade in that form of the game at the moment IMO.