Kapil Dev vs Shahid Afridi (ODI)

[Silver Silva]

Other than for Sri Lanka.

I don't think he cuts above Murali and Mendis as from line spinners and above Jayasuriya as the fifth bowler.

Sanath Jayasuriya and Shahid Afridi opening the batting would be chaos , left hand right hand combo aswell..Would be an awesome T20 combo too.

 

[number11]

Kapil throughout his career Ranked under 25 as an ODI batsman and Afridi always above 25.
Its like comparing a specialist batsman and a number 7.

We agree Kapil was a far better bowler. Inferior batsman though.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

We agree Kapil was a far better bowler. Inferior batsman though.

Yet Kapil was one of the top ranked batsman and Afridi nowhere to be seen in the rankings.

 

[number11]

Yet Kapil was one of the top ranked batsman and Afridi nowhere to be seen in the rankings.

Sorry, but Afridi was a much more impactful bat. Kapil had the rare good innings. For all his inconsistencies, Afridi hit a winning knock every so often. IIRC he has 5 or 6 tons, 30 odd 50s?

 

[trundler]

Yet Kapil was one of the top ranked batsman and Afridi nowhere to be seen in the rankings.

Do you mean the same rankings that had Kepler Weasels in the top 5 for pretty much his entire career despite being close to the worst specialist batsman to play that long?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Batting alone, Afridi did more. Both hitters but Dev did nothing of note bar 1 innings against pre-test Zimbo. Afridi had many highlights. Overall Dev is better as his bowling was far superior. Afridi's bowling is overrated. He was often ineffective.

Are you Serious?
Kapil scored a 51 ball 75 against Hadlee's NZ to become the top scorer in a low scoring match.
A 38 ball 72 against in India's first win against WI. Holding, Roberts, Marshall.. Etc were the bowlers.
175 came after these type of heroic performances.

Afridi scored in high scoring matches, Kapil was better in crisis situations.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Do you mean the same rankings that had Kepler Weasels in the top 5 for pretty much his entire career despite being close to the worst specialist batsman to play that long?

But in this case, Kapil's stats were very good for a specialist batsman throughout 80s.
Afridi despite played in an easier era, never had that type of stats.. He was always low 20s avg batsman.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sorry, but Afridi was a much more impactful bat. Kapil had the rare good innings. For all his inconsistencies, Afridi hit a winning knock every so often. IIRC he has 5 or 6 tons, 30 odd 50s?

Then How come, Afridi's avg so low, after all he played in the easier era.
Kapil's time was vastly different from Afridi's. Number of 100s and 50s were low in Kapil's period.
Kapil was good in clutch situations, most of Afridi's highest scores were in high scoring matches.

 

[h_hurricane]

Kapil was inconsistent as a batsman too, though his hitting ability was wasted down the order. In another era, he would have batted higher and scored a lot more runs. He did have his moments as a batsman though, not just the 175* against Zimbabwe. World Championship 1985 semi and onslaught on Hadlee immediately comes to mind. Overall, I will easily take a batsman who averaged 23 playing majorly in 80s over a batsman who averaged 23 playing majorly in 2000s.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Kapil throughout his career Ranked under 25 as an ODI batsman and Afridi always above 25.
Its like comparing a specialist batsman and a number 7.

I agree Kapil may have been better, but during 90+% of his career there were only WI, Aus, NZ, Pak, Eng, and Ind as proper sides so it was easy to be in the top 25. Kapil could be behind 6 West Indians, 4 Aussies, 3 Poms, 3 Pakistanis, a pair of Kiwis, a couple of other Indians, and a Roy Dias or Duleep Mendis and be easily in the top 25.

During Afridi's career there were gun South African and Sri Lankan batters as well plus some good Zimbabwean ones and Bangladeshis and even Irish and Dutch (RTD). Therefore, making the top 25 was much harder.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Anyway Lance Cairns averaged 16.7 @ 105 s/r and played from 1974-85. He was clearly better than both of them and would averaged 43 at 220 s/r if he played today.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I agree Kapil may have been better, but during 90+% of his career there were only WI, Aus, NZ, Pak, Eng, and Ind as proper sides so it was easy to be in the top 25. Kapil could be behind 6 West Indians, 4 Aussies, 3 Poms, 3 Pakistanis, a pair of Kiwis, a couple of other Indians, and a Roy Dias or Duleep Mendis and be easily in the top 25.

During Afridi's career there were gun South African and Sri Lankan batters as well plus some good Zimbabwean ones and Bangladeshis and even Irish and Dutch (RTD). Therefore, making the top 25 was much harder.

May be.. But Kapil was the highest ranked Indian batsman if you take entire 80s.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Kapil was inconsistent as a batsman too, though his hitting ability was wasted down the order. In another era, he would have batted higher and scored a lot more runs. He did have his moments as a batsman though, not just the 175* against Zimbabwe. World Championship 1985 semi and onslaught on Hadlee immediately comes to mind. Overall, I will easily take a batsman who averaged 23 playing majorly in 80s over a batsman who averaged 23 playing majorly in 2000s.

Actually Kapil averaged 27/28 in 80s
And Afridi was sub 25 even in his peak iirc.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Averages have changed very little over time. Less than a run IIRC.

NO.. 2000s was far easier than 80s and 90s

 

[number11]

Then How come, Afridi's avg so low, after all he played in the easier era.
Kapil's time was vastly different from Afridi's. Number of 100s and 50s were low in Kapil's period.
Kapil was good in clutch situations, most of Afridi's highest scores were in high scoring matches.

I said more impactful. Clearly his batting impacted games with more frequency than Kapil's did. Neither was a good bat - ave of 23 FFS, but one had a blinder of an innings periodically, and the other rarely. 1 ton - that too vs pre test Zimbo is nothing to shout about. Kapil wins the selection issue due to his bowling, but as a power hitter - he is inferior.

 

[smash84]

is this only considering their batting? Otherwise it's not even close.

 

[Jumno]

I said more impactful. Clearly his batting impacted games with more frequency than Kapil's did. Neither was a good bat - ave of 23 FFS, but one had a blinder of an innings periodically, and the other rarely. 1 ton - that too vs pre test Zimbo is nothing to shout about. Kapil wins the selection issue due to his bowling, but as a power hitter - he is inferior.

I think Afridi went berserk against India in an odi in 2005 and hit four sixes off harbhajan

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I said more impactful. Clearly his batting impacted games with more frequency than Kapil's did. Neither was a good bat - ave of 23 FFS, but one had a blinder of an innings periodically, and the other rarely. 1 ton - that too vs pre test Zimbo is nothing to shout about. Kapil wins the selection issue due to his bowling, but as a power hitter - he is inferior.

No.
Kapil was clearly better batsman than Afridi
Kapil Dev 1978-1988
122 innings
28 avg 104 SR
2702 runs, 1 century, 14 fifties

Afridi first 122 innings ( 1996-01)
2856 runs, 24 avg 100 SR
2 century, 16 fifties

Slight difference in 50+ scores due to era difference. Then,
Afridi played higher in the batting order
Scored against weaker attacks ( compared to Kapil's 50+scores )
Scored in higher scoring matches

Kapil's stats ( for more than a decade ) were better than some of the specialist batsmen of that era, whereas Afridi stats always remained below specialist batsman category.And most of Kapil's 50+ scores happened when the team is in trouble.

If i need to select a batsmen from these 2 ( for a 10 year period ) its not even a contest.. Kapil easily superior. Both in avg and strike rate. ( that too without era adjustment )

 

[number11]

is this only considering their batting? Otherwise it's not even close.

Everyone accepts Dev wins overall - a few hypernationalists want to argue specifically about batting. Both ave 23, one has much more impactful innings but a solitary ton vs minnows apparently swings it.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Everyone accepts Dev wins overall - a few hypernationalists want to argue specifically about batting. Both ave 23, one has much more impactful innings but a solitary ton vs minnows apparently swings it.

One averaged 23 in a tougher era with a far better adjusted SR and was more reliable in crisis situations . Also did well against quality attacks compared to the other.

Had Kapil played in the Afridi era, He would have averaged at least 28 at 130 SR With more number of 50s than Afridi.