Razzaq vs Afridi( In ODIs)

[Rob Wesley]

Who was the better all rounder/cricketer in ODIs?

 

[Rob Wesley]

Who is better bowler and better batsman?

 

[subshakerz]

Razzaq. Late 90s he was a class bowler and he is a better hitter than Afridi especially in late stages of matches.

Afridi would dream of hitting McGrath for 5 fours in an over.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Afridi would dream of hitting McGrath for 5 fours in an over.

...so you're saying he could do it in his sleep?

 

[subshakerz]

...so you're saying he could do it in his sleep?

If he's dreaming.

 

[sayon basak]

If he's dreaming.

Insulting to McGrath.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Razzaq. Late 90s he was a class bowler and he is a better hitter than Afridi especially in late stages of matches.

Afridi would dream of hitting McGrath for 5 fours in an over.

Afridi’s longevity and strike rate is insane.. Also good WC performance

 

[subshakerz]

Afridi’s longevity and strike rate is insane.. Also good WC performance

Razzaq played over 250 games for 15 years. At that point, longevity is moot between them. Razzaq was just a notably better bowler than Afridi.

Afridi had a good WC with the ball in 2011 but flopped in the ones before that.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Razzaq played over 250 games for 15 years. At that point, longevity is moot between them. Razzaq was just a notably better bowler than Afridi.

Afridi had a good WC with the ball in 2011 but flopped in the ones before that.

Afridi played around 20 years… 150 more games
Opened the batting more than at any other position…fastest 100 once.. Strike Rate of 117
9 five fers
Razzaq might have better barely stats if longevity is
ignored

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I always thought that Razzaq was a Shaun Pollock clone

 

[capt_Luffy]

Razzaq played over 250 games for 15 years. At that point, longevity is moot between them. Razzaq was just a notably better bowler than Afridi.

Afridi had a good WC with the ball in 2011 but flopped in the ones before that.

Disagree. You are underselling Afridi's bowling. He has a barely higher average and a better Economy, despite playing in a much later era and bowling leg spin.

 

[shortpitched713]

They were exactly as good as one another.

Razzaq the better batsman, Afridi the better bowler.

I have heard there was such a thing as prime Razzaq, so maybe he could've been better, but idk.

 

[trundler]

Afridi was terrible and Razzaq wasn't

 

[Rob Wesley]

Disagree. You are underselling Afridi's bowling. He has a barely higher average and a better Economy, despite playing in a much later era and bowling leg spin.

afridi was minnows basher. Razzaq 32, afridi 35

 

[subshakerz]

Disagree. You are underselling Afridi's bowling. He has a barely higher average and a better Economy, despite playing in a much later era and bowling leg spin.

Yeah but I saw Razzaq achieve a level of being nearly worldclass towards the end of the 90s, and did well in the 99 WC which folks forget. Afridi was never that level.

Razzaq owned Tendulkar pretty bad then.

 

[subshakerz]

They were exactly as good as one another.

Razzaq the better batsman, Afridi the better bowler.

I have heard there was such a thing as prime Razzaq, so maybe he could've been better, but idk.

Prime Razzaq was late 90s and early 2000s and he was indeed better and a key member of Pak ODI side.

Afridi was always a liability at the top of the order, probably cost Pakistan more games than he won.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean, Afridi wasn't really a batsman per se. He was supposed to be at first, but eventually found his most successful niche as a bowling all-rounder. I think he was more consistent with the ball throughout his career than Razzaq, although obviously they have different roles being spinner vs seamer.

I think Afridi was definitely too inconsistent as a bat, although it was always neat whenever it did come off. He basically overkilled those games to a point where the opponent had very little chance. Ultimately Afridi always did enough between both sides of batting/bowling to justify his place in the side pretty comfortably I feel. Same with Razzaq though, especially I think he became a reliable bat in the lower order as a finisher.

 

[Migara]

Razzaq. Late 90s he was a class bowler and he is a better hitter than Afridi especially in late stages of matches.

Afridi would dream of hitting McGrath for 5 fours in an over.

However Afridi would hit Murali, Hogg or Warne for 20 in an over.

Different beasts, different strengths. Razzaq a better player of pace, and Afridi a better player of spin. Razzaq bats in and then explodes. And when he does, he doesn't get out easily. Afridi starts from ball one.

Razzaq had a fantastic peak with the ball and then became ordinary. Afridi never was stellar, but good throughout his long career.

Pakistan should have played Razzaq, Azhar Mahmood, Afridi, Saqlain and Shoaib as their front line attack. They could bring in another pacer depending on the form. They missed the trick big time

 

[subshakerz]

However Afridi would hit Murali, Hogg or Warne for 20 in an over.

Different beasts, different strengths. Razzaq a better player of pace, and Afridi a better player of spin. Razzaq bats in and then explodes. And when he does, he doesn't get out easily. Afridi starts from ball one.

Razzaq had a fantastic peak with the ball and then became ordinary. Afridi never was stellar, but good throughout his long career.

Pakistan should have played Razzaq, Azhar Mahmood, Afridi, Saqlain and Shoaib as their front line attack. They could bring in another pacer depending on the form. They missed the trick big time

The problem is that they largely gave Afridi the opening which exposed his weakness to pace more and made him more of a liability.

 

[shortpitched713]

The problem is that the largely gave Afridi the opening which exposed his weakness to pace more and made him more of a liability.

They got better at utilizing I'm later on. I agree that he was a pretty terrible opening choice. I always preferred Shoaib Malik, or even Akmal if you needed a makeshift ODI opener (which Pakistan honestly usually did).