Highly under rated: Shahid Afridi

[thierry henry]

Vettori's poor averages are no accident. Mediocre test player, good ODI bowler.

 

[PAKMAN]

He's one of the best entertainers as well. He brings in the crowds, and as poor Akmal found out, when he goes out the crowds can also leave just as fast. Although with Akmal hitting ton after ton the crowds may not just disappear on him as they did in the 2nd test.

lol i was there watching that game live ,i stayed till the end ,but my real intenison was to watch afridi bat ,he is such a croud puller but he let us down with the that thing he did on the pitch ,but he has taken his punishment and we love him again

 

[Maison]

And a brilliant fieldsman.

IMO, Afridi is potentially one of the greatest cricketers ever.

hahaha mmm no.

but yeah the stats do show that he is more than capable... of receiving more 'respect'

if his bowling stats are better than flintoff's well, okay, but i havent seen afridi bowl, but ive seen flintoff bowl, and its pretty darn good.....

 

[GotSpin]

hahaha mmm no.

but yeah the stats do show that he is more than capable... of receiving more 'respect'

if his bowling stats are better than flintoff's well, okay, but i havent seen afridi bowl, but ive seen flintoff bowl, and its pretty darn good.....

He said potentially, and i fail to see how you can comment on afridi if you havnt seen him bowl

 

[Maison]

He said potentially, and i fail to see how you can comment on afridi if you havnt seen him bowl

i didnt comment on him.... or his skill

i was refering to the stats, which intheory can mean nothing.

 

[marc71178]

Apparently Paul Collingwood has bowled only 30 overs in 5 tests he has played and 306 overs in ODIs..
Afridi 388 overs in 20 tests and 1380 overs in 214 ODIs..

Obviously Collingwood is an allrounder, Afridi isn't.

No, Collingwood is far from an all rounder in either form, and nobody has ever declared him as such.

 

[magsi23]

Well ive met Afridi personally on atleast 5 occassions he is a great character and i think u cant compare him with anyone, there is no comparison between him and others, He is just superb, particularly last 2 years he is been in very good form and i hope he continues this way for many years to come

 

[Sanz]

Who the hell calls Collingwood an allrounder at test level? Hell, even at ODI level. He's a batsman who can fill in 5-10 overs as a part-timer in ODIs, and a specialist bat at test level.

Your little comparison to prove hypocrisy fails this time Sanz.

Mind you, I do agree with your point, Afridi is a test allrounder.

Well, almost every article, news report I read about Collingwood, he is referred as 'Durham Allrounder' and I assumed that he is one..But I guess this forum doesn't consider him an allrounder.. so my apologies for that assumption.

 

[Robertinho]

I thought he was considered an all rounder? Not a good enough bat to be considered a specialist bat?

 

[Sanz]

No, Collingwood is far from an all rounder in either form, and nobody has ever declared him as such.

Somewhere on the forum, here someone said :-

"Collingwood was the 4th English allrounder to be dismissed or not out in the 90's in a test in Pakistan "
Also, as i said most of the news report I read on this mention Paul Collingwood as an allrounder. Here is one BBC News report :-

England all-rounder Paul Collingwood is hoping to make the most of a second opportunity on tour in Pakistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4481788.stm

 

[open365]

Afridi under rated?

He's the most popular cricketer in Pakistan.

 

[deeps]

Popular does not mean he's rated highly

He's popular due to his style of play, which brings the crowds in and puts em on their seats.

 

[Slats4ever]

tbh my theory on all rounders works like this. If your batting average is higher than your bowling average then you're worth your spot in the team.

If you had ten all rounders in a team averaging 35 with the bat everytime they went out to bat theoretically they'd make 350. If they averaged 30 with the ball they'd bowl the other team out theoretically for 300. Therefore they should win most games.

 

[thierry henry]

tbh my theory on all rounders works like this. If your batting average is higher than your bowling average then you're worth your spot in the team.

If you had ten all rounders in a team averaging 35 with the bat everytime they went out to bat theoretically they'd make 350. If they averaged 30 with the ball they'd bowl the other team out theoretically for 300. Therefore they should win most games.

Does this mean that Glenn McGrath contributes a negative value to the team?

What if an "allrounder" averaged 28 as a frontline bowler and 25 with the bat? Not worth his spot?

 

[marc71178]

There are so few players with batting average better than bowling that I think a different sort of criteria is needed.

 

[Slats4ever]

Does this mean that Glenn McGrath contributes a negative value to the team?

What if an "allrounder" averaged 28 as a frontline bowler and 25 with the bat? Not worth his spot?

no silly. it only applies to people who consider themselves or class themselves as all rounders. Gosh you need a bit've brains when applying it.

 

[Prince EWS]

There are so few players with batting average better than bowling that I think a different sort of criteria is needed.

Not really. You have the likes of Ponting, who have batting averages so high that they can average rediculous amount with the ball and still be classed as good allrounders with this line of thinking.

However, someone that averages 56 with the bat and 55 with the ball is not a better allrounder than someone who averages 31 with the bat and 32 with the ball, hence rendering this simplistic rating system flawed.

 

[Slats4ever]

of course the system is simplistic and flawed. But when applying it's logic to valid cases I believe it works quite efficiently. Before it is to be applied players must first be classed as genuine all rounders...

 

[Robertinho]

IMO you don't need to have a system where if batting>bowling, they're good. Just look at the averages and see for yourself. Like Thierry said, someone who averaged 25 with the bat and 28 with the ball would still be a pretty good allrounder. whereas someone averaging 37 with the bat and 36 with the ball could neither be a specialist batsman or bowler, and wouldn't be a good all rounder as his bowling is just crap.

 

[Googenheim]

IMO you don't need to have a system where if batting>bowling, they're good. Just look at the averages and see for yourself. Like Thierry said, someone who averaged 25 with the bat and 28 with the ball would still be a pretty good allrounder. whereas someone averaging 37 with the bat and 36 with the ball could neither be a specialist batsman or bowler, and wouldn't be a good all rounder as his bowling is just crap.

BINGO!

I like the way you think. Slats4ever, you might have had good intentions while working out your system, but it isnt practical mate. (In other words, I'm trying to put it across as non-offensively as possible, that that system stinks)