What's new

Hardik Pandya vs Faheem Ashraf

ManFan said:
I’m guessing you missed the part where I specifically stated that it was the first three innings comparison becuse that is what Faheem played.

It would be unfair to take anything into account after the first innings of the Second Test because that is more than Faheem played in the same country.
Click to expand...
Seriously man, you are having a bad day as a poster.
No logic in your post.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Seriously man, you are having a bad day as a poster.
No logic in your post.
Click to expand...

It’s the only fair comparison in my view.

Even if Pandya’s stats take a hit after this series, I’ll remain a man of my word and only use the first three innings as a comparison between the two in England.
 
Last edited:
ManFan said:
1). Hat-trick in T20 against SL in his third match.
2). Match-winning fifty on Test debut against Ireland.
3). Five-wicket-haul against Zimbabwe in ODI’s.

Those are all minnows, I admit that but are still great achievements for someone in their first year in international cricket.
Click to expand...

A 50 against Ireland and a 5'fer against a second string Zimbabwe are not great achievements unless that comes from an associate-level team. Show some pride in Pakistan's Cricketing legacy and please stop celebrating such minnow-bashing. :facepalm:

Exclude minnows, and Faheem averages 13 with bat in both ODIs and Tests.
Exclude minnows, and Faheem is inferior to Pandya even as a bowler.

All that may change in future, but it is not even a comparison today.
 
Last edited:
jeeteshssaxena said:
Seriously man, you are having a bad day as a poster.
No logic in your post.
Click to expand...

Apparently, 50 against Ireland and 5'fer against depleted Zimbabwe are great achievements and are at par with anything Hardik has achieved. :vk2

Also the performance in England don't count after 1st inning of the 2nd Test. This is some next level comedy. :)))
 
ads101 said:
If you take out Ireland, his test batting average is 13. His Bowling average is a respectable 29.75 thanks to one good England test where he bowled well.

If you take out Zimbabwe from ODIs, he averages 15.6 with the bat, 36.85 with the ball.

Last T20s, his best format by a clear margin. If you take out Zimbabwe, Scotland, ICC world XI, his batting average is 11.50, bowling average of 19.35. That bowling average is good. However is very much proped up by a very weak Sri Lankan team, it was pretty much their C team with virtually all their main players rested. Take that out, and his bowling average jumps to 29.42.

All in all what has been very clear that so far Faheem really hasn't done well against anyone except for Minnows. He's gone missing for the most part against everyone else. I think it's stupid to compare to Pandya as at least he has some memorable performances against non-minnows on him.

Faheem's potential can be mentioned, but you can not compare them on actual performance. Faheem's done nothing of yet. If anything he's been a passenger on the team against the non-minnow sides. Faheem wasn't even trusted to bowl much until Zimbabwe came along, and it was decided it was now safe to bowl him.

Pandya's being attacked left right and centre on both his batting and bowling. And he's been given actual responsibility, so he's culpable. Faheem bats at 8, and hardly bowls. He's given no pressure. Been saying for ages, bat Faheem at 7, and give him full quota of overs in ODIs (shouldn't be playing tests, he has no role there). Until that happens, I find it funny how posters can herald Faheem's performances while bashing Pandya.
Click to expand...

I find Pandya to be very good player for India and I have repeated that on some of the threads that were going too hard on him after his recent series of low performances, but to bring down another player with very questionable filters is, frankly, quite appalling.

ads101 said:
If you take out Ireland, his test batting average is 13.
Click to expand...

You do know that he has played only 3 test matches to date and only batted in 4 innings, right? I mean if you did know of the lack of statistics available to gauge a players ability in one particular format, then why would you then go on to also remove the crucial 83 he made. Quite odd. Obviously, the average will plummet. The conditions in which he made those runs were quite difficult, especially for a newbie and shouldn't be discarded without any valid reasoning. One fact that some people constantly brush aside is that Fahim debuted in Test Cricket on the tour to UK itself. He didn't have the luxury to play at home, which is quite essential for a youngster to first establish himself and have the confidence instilled in him, prior to the overseas tour. Even if we discard that, Fahim still had a very good series, considering he got breakthroughs regularly with some of the bowls being absolute 'peaches'. He also got crucial runs in the first test victory. Also, it is imperative to consider that players usually take time to acclimatise to the conditions. Hardik had a full t20 series and ODI series (although different format but it does help) prior to the tests. Even still, if we compare Fahim's his returns to Pandya's in the respective first two tests, we all know who was more impactful.

ads101 said:
His Bowling average is a respectable 29.75 thanks to one good England test where he bowled well.
Click to expand...

Since you've discounted the Ireland test, he's only played in two other matches. In those two matches against England, he bowled in 3 innings in total, both innings of the first test and first innings of the second. And since you infer that his average is only respectable because of that one test, you are effectively saying that 2 of the 3 innings in which he bowled in make his stats better and the one innings in which he didn't bowl that well, should be a criterion of judgment of his bowling ability. I believe common sense dictates that it should be the opposite.

ads101 said:
Last T20s, his best format by a clear margin. If you take out Zimbabwe, Scotland, ICC world XI, his batting average is 11.50, bowling average of 19.35. That bowling average is good. However is very much proped up by a very weak Sri Lankan team, it was pretty much their C team with virtually all their main players rested. Take that out, and his bowling average jumps to 29.42.
Click to expand...

Very unfair filters applied. In almost all the matches that Fahim played against Australia and New Zealand, he batted at No.8 and because of that he came in either the last or penultimate over and since Pakistan lacks power hitters, he was expected to tee off from his first delivery. Also, you almost conveniently glossed over the fact that this Fahim's first year in International Cricket. I don't like to cherry pick statistics like many do, but I'll just do one in a similar vein for the purpose of comparison. Pandya's T20 bowling average against Australia, England, South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and West Indies in his first year: 32.71. Pandya's T20 Batting Average against all sides in his first year: 11.14. Pandya's career ODI Bowling Average against Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka: 42.90. Pandya's career Batting Average outside of India: 19.63.

So as evident, anyone can apply some selective filters to portray any player as mediocre. Let's not be naïve. The game can't be solely seen through a selective set of numbers and it shouldn't be. We can't just discount a good performance just because it was against a weak opposition and only judge the player's abilities off of the "big series". The stats don't always reflect the intricacies of the game which range in, loss of form, recovering from injury, or just fatigue before the important series. Especially since the sample size is already too small and hence a large uncertainty is prevalent, removing one or two performances can totally distort the stats. So until both have played a good number of matches, selective stats shouldn't be the only thing to propel this argument forward.
 
OmarKhan99 said:
So as evident, anyone can apply some selective filters to portray any player as mediocre. Let's not be naïve. The game can't be solely seen through a selective set of numbers and it shouldn't be. We can't just discount a good performance just because it was against a weak opposition and only judge the player's abilities off of the "big series". The stats don't always reflect the intricacies of the game which range in, loss of form, recovering from injury, or just fatigue before the important series. Especially since the sample size is already too small and hence a large uncertainty is prevalent, removing one or two performances can totally distort the stats. So until both have played a good number of matches, selective stats shouldn't be the only thing to propel this argument forward.
Click to expand...

Does excluding minnows count as selective filters? I hope not, and that leaves Faheem's numbers as -

Test batting average - 13
Test bowling average - 29.7

ODI batting average - 15.6
ODI bowling average - 37
 
Last edited:
ManFan said:
I’m guessing you missed the part where I specifically stated that it was the first three innings comparison becuse that is what Faheem played.

It would be unfair to take anything into account after the first innings of the Second Test because that is more than Faheem played in the same country.
Click to expand...

This is not good statistics technique.

A statistician will tell you that if you are comparing averages of Faheem to Pandya, you need the most possible estimates for both of them. If Faheem has played only 3 innings, you would still want to consider all innings of Pandya.
 
ManFan said:
I’m guessing you missed the part where I specifically stated that it was the first three innings comparison becuse that is what Faheem played.

It would be unfair to take anything into account after the first innings of the Second Test because that is more than Faheem played in the same country.
Click to expand...

What kind of logic is this? Seriously man, you're having a bad day as a poster. Don't worry, it happens to the best of us. You should take a break from the internet today.
 
Whoever started this thread hasn't been fair on Faheem. Even I have started feeling bad about bashing a career so young just to prove Pandya's obvious superiority.

Let Fahim play more, let him have an opportunity to recover from this poor start, and let's compare when he has something to show for his talent. This should be common sense.
 
Some smashing logic in this thread.

Just so that we are clear, if Fahim does not perform in the first Test in South Africa, his performances in the subsequent Tests will not be taken into account, since Pandya performed in the first Test and did not take any time to acclimatize to the conditions.

If Fahim performs in the second or third Test, it will not be taken into account because he took more time to acclimatize to the conditions.
 
Mamoon said:
Some smashing logic in this thread.

Just so that we are clear, if Fahim does not perform in the first Test in South Africa, his performances in the subsequent Tests will not be taken into account, since Pandya performed in the first Test and did not take any time to acclimatize to the conditions.

If Fahim performs in the second or third Test, it will not be taken into account because he took more time to acclimatize to the conditions.
Click to expand...

No because both players will have a chance to play the same number of Tests in SA- three.

The difference is not astounding like a two-Test and five-Test series.

Regardless, I did use the first two Tests as a comparison (leaving out Pandya’s 24 in the 4th innings, which if taken into account does little to change the two Test comparison).

But I’ll admit my logic was poor in that arguement and we shall see how Pandya performs in the next two Tests.
 
ManFan said:
No because both players will have a chance to play the same number of Tests in SA- three.

The difference is not astounding like a two-Test and five-Test series.

Regardless, I did use the first two Tests as a comparison (leaving out Pandya’s 24 in the 4th innings, which if taken into account does little to change the two Test comparison).

But I’ll admit my logic was poor in that arguement and we shall see how Pandya performs in the next two Tests.
Click to expand...

So by ur logic If Faheem bowled n number of deliveries against England then u only going to consider same n number of deliveries bowled by pandya n discount all the wicket
Pandya take after that
 
Peshwa said:
So by ur logic If Faheem bowled n number of deliveries against England then u only going to consider same n number of deliveries bowled by pandya n discount all the wicket
Pandya take after that
Click to expand...

The entire purpose of me using the “three innings” or “Two Tests” criteria was to take away any potential “law-of-average” deviation which did in fact occur during the Third Test.

Obviously I’m not going to ignore his five-fer’ or fifty.
 
OmarKhan99 said:
.
Click to expand...

All I did was take out minnow performances. That's not cherry picking. Can keep the Sri Lankan T20 numbers if you want, Sri Lanka aren't normally minnows but that team they sent out was extremely weak. I remember posters bashing Sri Lanka saying they sent out their E team, wasn't the strength of the team they fielded in ODIs. Excluding minnows is a valid way of assessing players and is done for any player, not exclusively Faheem. Ireland, Zimbabwe (and teams lower than them) just lag behind far too much behind the non-minnows pack. I even consider Bangladesh as non-minnows these days.

He had an alright test career against non-minnows so far, he bowled well in one of the tests, failed with the bat in two. But against England again, nothing was stand out, I didn't see a strike/main bowler in him. I still think to date his bowling in that second test was his best performance so far. If you objectively compare the pacers in the England series, Faheem regardless of stats, had the least impact of all our pacers.


Pandya showed his big hitting abilities early on in ODIs against non-minnow opposition in his first few ODIs. He has a 100 and a 90 odd, the latter in SA in his first five tests. He know has even a 5 wicket haul against England which will win his side the test. There were something that sparked the hype. If Faheem gets a hundred against a non minnow test 5 than fine, but looking at him he doesn't seem capable of that yet.


As I said the biggest difference is the role. Pandya bats higher up, he might even bowl more than Faheem. He's the premier allrounder in his team. He's established as a big hitter which he does do even if he's not as consistent as we'd like. He adds value to the team. And even then I'm not convinced of his ability in tests and would drop him. I think he might even lose his ODI place too, there might be better options. But I understand what he brings to the team. When Faheem comes out, I don't expect big hitting atm. If anything Faheem just feels part of the tail.

Pandya bats at 8 and bowls about 5 overs a game (like a part timer). And is considered only the 2nd best allrounder in his team. What role is that? Even if you compare matches with both Shadab and Faheem, Shadab's been better and showed better potential bat and ball. Even if you compare to the past like Imad, they weren't being underutilised like that. He bats at the bowling slot, but at no point did I think he rivals the bowling abilities such as Amir, Hasan, Abbas, Shadab and others. He just doesn't have the level of the same skill as they do.

That's why you can't compare Pandya and Faheem. One has performances against non-minnow sides. One doesn't. One has showed his potential yet through performances, one hasn't.

You can give Faheem another year of the same bat at no.8 bowl 5 overs, and you'll still get nothing. Because he still won't have the opportunity to perform. Which is why I find it funny people saying only a year, give it time. Most cricketers will get more opportunities in 1 year, than Faheem will get in 3 years in his current role.

He's just been a passenger in our team really against the non-minnow sides. Not given a role. And if the extent of his ability is to be the 8th best batsman in our team, only 2nd best allrounder in our team and not even be good enough to be entrusted 10 overs, then there's no point of him. He's adds nothing. Get in a batsman who is considered good enough to bat above Shadab our spinner. Or get a bowler in (or other bowling allrounder) whom we're actually desperate to bowl 10 overs not fit a few overs here and there in.
 
Last edited:
ads101 said:
All I did was take out minnow performances. That's not cherry picking. Can keep the Sri Lankan T20 numbers if you want, Sri Lanka aren't normally minnows but that team they sent out was extremely weak. I remember posters bashing Sri Lanka saying they sent out their E team, wasn't the strength of the team they fielded in ODIs. Excluding minnows is a valid way of assessing players and is done for any player, not exclusively Faheem. Ireland, Zimbabwe (and teams lower than them) just lag behind far too much behind the non-minnows pack. I even consider Bangladesh as non-minnows these days.

He had an alright test career against non-minnows so far, he bowled well in one of the tests, failed with the bat in two. But against England again, nothing was stand out, I didn't see a strike/main bowler in him. I still think to date his bowling in that second test was his best performance so far. If you objectively compare the pacers in the England series, Faheem regardless of stats, had the least impact of all our pacers.


Pandya showed his big hitting abilities early on in ODIs against non-minnow opposition in his first few ODIs. He has a 100 and a 90 odd, the latter in SA in his first five tests. He know has even a 5 wicket haul against England which will win his side the test. There were something that sparked the hype. If Faheem gets a hundred against a non minnow test 5 than fine, but looking at him he doesn't seem capable of that yet.


As I said the biggest difference is the role. Pandya bats higher up, he might even bowl more than Faheem. He's the premier allrounder in his team. He's established as a big hitter which he does do even if he's not as consistent as we'd like. He adds value to the team. And even then I'm not convinced of his ability in tests and would drop him. I think he might even lose his ODI place too, there might be better options. But I understand what he brings to the team. When Faheem comes out, I don't expect big hitting atm. If anything Faheem just feels part of the tail.

Pandya bats at 8 and bowls about 5 overs a game (like a part timer). And is considered only the 2nd best allrounder in his team. What role is that? Even if you compare matches with both Shadab and Faheem, Shadab's been better and showed better potential bat and ball. Even if you compare to the past like Imad, they weren't being underutilised like that. He bats at the bowling slot, but at no point did I think he rivals the bowling abilities such as Amir, Hasan, Abbas, Shadab and others. He just doesn't have the level of the same skill as they do.

That's why you can't compare Pandya and Faheem. One has performances against non-minnow sides. One doesn't. One has showed his potential yet through performances, one hasn't.

You can give Faheem another year of the same bat at no.8 bowl 5 overs, and you'll still get nothing. Because he still won't have the opportunity to perform. Which is why I find it funny people saying only a year, give it time. Most cricketers will get more opportunities in 1 year, than Faheem will get in 3 years in his current role.

He's just been a passenger in our team really against the non-minnow sides. Not given a role. And if the extent of his ability is to be the 8th best batsman in our team, only 2nd best allrounder in our team and not even be good enough to be entrusted 10 overs, then there's no point of him. He's adds nothing. Get in a batsman who is considered good enough to bat above Shadab our spinner. Or get a bowler in (or other bowling allrounder) whom we're actually desperate to bowl 10 overs not fit a few overs here and there in.
Click to expand...

I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head.
 
ManFan said:
I’m guessing you missed the part where I specifically stated that it was the first three innings comparison becuse that is what Faheem played.

It would be unfair to take anything into account after the first innings of the Second Test because that is more than Faheem played in the same country.
Click to expand...
I guess next in line logic will be number of balls bowled and event on each ball ( spot fixing types comparision).
For example in first over of first ODI on second ball Fahim got a lbw while first over of first ODI on second ball Pandya got driven for a four,.
So obviously Fahim is better.
 
mp812rediff said:
I guess next in line logic will be number of balls bowled and event on each ball ( spot fixing types comparision).
For example in first over of first ODI on second ball Fahim got a lbw while first over of first ODI on second ball Pandya got driven for a four,.
So obviously Fahim is better.
Click to expand...

Answer this question:

If one bowler gets 10 overs to bowl (gets 3-4 wickets) while the other gets 4 (gets 1-2 wickets) would you say that one who bowled 10 overs bowed better than the one who bowled 4 in a direct comparison?
 
Like I said both are average, I hope Pandya performs consistently and proves me wrong. This test was a start lets see where he goes 2-3 years from now.

Fahim is also equally mediocre so far in tests we have to wait for 2-3 years to see what he becomes.
 
ManFan said:
Answer this question:

If one bowler gets 10 overs to bowl (gets 3-4 wickets) while the other gets 4 (gets 1-2 wickets) would you say that one who bowled 10 overs bowed better than the one who bowled 4 in a direct comparison?
Click to expand...

The question is why did the other get only 4 overs?
Was it because he was bowling bad or was it team did not need him to bowl?Was it because opposition score the winning runs before he got 5 th over.
It is a team game and selective stats cannot happen.. because game circumstances are different always ? Take your own example the one who bowled 10 overs and got 3-4 wickets may have been tailender wickets or got those wickets in last 2 overs when batters have already put on 325 and try to hit a six of any ball ignoring risks..... while the other bowler who bowled 4 overs may have taken out openers in first 5 overs chasing 150 in an ODI
 
mp812rediff said:
The question is why did the other get only 4 overs?
Was it because he was bowling bad or was it team did not need him to bowl?Was it because opposition score the winning runs before he got 5 th over.
It is a team game and selective stats cannot happen.. because game circumstances are different always ? Take your own example the one who bowled 10 overs and got 3-4 wickets may have been tailender wickets or got those wickets in last 2 overs when batters have already put on 325 and try to hit a six of any ball ignoring risks..... while the other bowler who bowled 4 overs may have taken out openers in first 5 overs chasing 150 in an ODI
Click to expand...

In my example, the overs represented the opportunities received.
 
BlackShadow said:
Once in a blue moon guy has a better Test bowling average than Amir and Hasan Ali. Not just that, he has a higher Test batting average than Babar Azam.

Tell us about Fahim. :)
Click to expand...
Lets see Pandya have a better bowling average than Amir and Hasan Ali by the end of this tour. Lets see him have a higher Test batting average than Babar Azam by the end of this tour. I have complete faith in Hardik Pandya to mess up in the next two Tests and make chest-thumpers like you disappear once again.

Let’s talk about Fahim after he has played atleast five Test matches :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Usman Chadda said:
Lets see Pandya have a better bowling average than Amir and Hasan Ali by the end of this tour. Lets see him have a higher Test batting average than Babar Azam by the end of this tour. I have complete faith in Hardik Pandya to mess up in the next two Tests and make chest-thumpers like you disappear once again.

Let’s talk about Fahim after he has played atleast five Test matches :)
Click to expand...

No.

Let’s discuss someone who has played 10+ Tests with someone who has yet to play four.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ManFan said:
No.

Let’s discuss someone who has played 10+ Tests with someone who has yet to play four.
Click to expand...
The constant comparisons with Faheem Ashraf by Indians lately, despite them claiming there is no comparison is hilarious to say the least. No fun trolling these shodaybaaz though, when they run away as soon as the going gets tough. This last week has really taken the sting out of the banter. Boring.
 
Usman Chadda said:
The constant comparisons with Faheem Ashraf by Indians lately, despite them claiming there is no comparison is hilarious to say the least. No fun trolling these shodaybaaz though, when they run away as soon as the going gets tough. This last week has really taken the sting out of the banter. Boring.
Click to expand...

Faheem went from being “not a cricketer” to inducing an incredible amount of Indians to compare him with their “golden boy”.
 
ManFan said:
Faheem went from being “not a cricketer” to inducing an incredible amount of Indians to compare him with their “golden boy”.
Click to expand...
Bet some of these guys are silly enough to go up to Holding right now and say “so let’s talk about Faheem Ashraf”
 
ManFan said:
Faheem went from being “not a cricketer” to inducing an incredible amount of Indians to compare him with their “golden boy”.
Click to expand...

No one would care about Fahim if it wasn't for this ridiculous thread.

The guy averages 13 with bat and 37 with ball when he is not playing minnows. A career like that wouldn't get a second look in most countries.
 
BlackShadow said:
No one would care about Fahim if it wasn't for this ridiculous thread.

The guy averages 13 with bat and 37 with ball when he is not playing minnows. A career like that wouldn't get a second look in most countries.
Click to expand...

No one would care?

So why is this thread twenty-one and counting pages in?
 
Looks like this thread will turn from Pandya vs Ashraf to [MENTION=146612]BlackShadow[/MENTION] vs [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION]

Chill guys. Why are u wasting ur time and especially troubling ur fingers, typing such big paragraphs.

I feel bored even to type a 5 line post. 😢
 
Kohli said:
Looks like this thread will turn from Pandya vs Ashraf to [MENTION=146612]BlackShadow[/MENTION] vs [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION]

Chill guys. Why are u wasting ur time and especially troubling ur fingers, typing such big paragraphs.

I feel bored even to type a 5 line post. 😢
Click to expand...
Yeah.

It’s pretty much a waste of time right now.
 
BlackShadow said:
Ask the troll brigade that bumps this thread with every Pandya failure. Who even started this thread? An Indian?
Click to expand...

He just said young and good prospects, lol.

And btw, where is that guy, he's not even replying and must be laughing at these posts and thread has already reached 1600+ in about a year.
 
Usman Chadda said:
Lets see Pandya have a better bowling average than Amir and Hasan Ali by the end of this tour. Lets see him have a higher Test batting average than Babar Azam by the end of this tour. I have complete faith in Hardik Pandya to mess up in the next two Tests and make chest-thumpers like you disappear once again.

Let’s talk about Fahim after he has played atleast five Test matches :)
Click to expand...

First you claimed Pandya was worse than a "one legged Anwar Ali" and now you're still going at it. Give it a rest, he's proven you wrong so such a response was expected I guess.

Anyway how he averages by the end of tour compared to those players discussed is irrelevant - all that matters is Pandya has proven so far in his short career to be the far superior cricketer over a short trundling tail ender in Faheem Ashraf.
 
Pandya the better bat and fielder. In terms of bowling it seems 50/50 but pandya is more effective and most likely to take a wicket
 
topspin said:
First you claimed Pandya was worse than a "one legged Anwar Ali" and now you're still going at it. Give it a rest, he's proven you wrong so such a response was expected I guess.

Anyway how he averages by the end of tour compared to those players discussed is irrelevant - all that matters is Pandya has proven so far in his short career to be the far superior cricketer over a short trundling tail ender in Faheem Ashraf.
Click to expand...
How can it be short when he debuted in January 2016 and Faheem debuted in June 2017?

Regardless, he has achieved more than Faheem against better opposition.
 
topspin said:
First you claimed Pandya was worse than a "one legged Anwar Ali" and now you're still going at it. Give it a rest, he's proven you wrong so such a response was expected I guess.

Anyway how he averages by the end of tour compared to those players discussed is irrelevant - all that matters is Pandya has proven so far in his short career to be the far superior cricketer over a short trundling tail ender in Faheem Ashraf.
Click to expand...

Same height as Shami
 
I hope this test is the turning point for Pandya's career as a true allrounder and not a batting allrounder who can bowl 8-10 overs a day. He has bowled a very good test match length, swung and extracted movement off the pitch. That is what he needs to do more consistently.

At a time when his test career was on the line, great to see him perform.

Is looking at a 250 runs@35 and 13-14 wickets@25 in the series. Brilliant for an all rounder
 
One of the main reasons for his success is that he is clocking good speeds above 140 km consistently in all the formats! So he is not that average trundler from India (mocked by people) who is going to fade away like Sanjay Bangar, Stuart Binny, etc. He is there here to stay! He may not become Kapil Dev (and please from now on don't troll him as Sobers. You should understand how difficult it is to find & get a true fast bowling alrounder! That's a rare breed even for countries who produced them a lot in the past - South Africa, WI, Australia, Pakistan...) But I am sure he will more valuable than somebody like Irfan Pathan. So instead of thinking in terms of Sobers, Kallis, etc, lets be satisfied if he can be on par with Azhar Mehmood, Abdul Razzak, etc, (in years to come if he grows like this) which will be more than enough for Indian Team!
 
topspin said:
First you claimed Pandya was worse than a "one legged Anwar Ali" and now you're still going at it. Give it a rest, he's proven you wrong so such a response was expected I guess.

Anyway how he averages by the end of tour compared to those players discussed is irrelevant - all that matters is Pandya has proven so far in his short career to be the far superior cricketer over a short trundling tail ender in Faheem Ashraf.
Click to expand...
I can believe what I want about whoever I want. I don’t agree with your assesment of Faheem Ashraf, but I haven’t yet told you to ‘Give it a rest’ have I? Keep those comments to yourself next time if you know what’s better for you.

Pandya will be back in the next test, making those averages better :amir2
 
Usman Chadda said:
I can believe what I want about whoever I want. I don’t agree with your assesment of Faheem Ashraf, but I haven’t yet told you to ‘Give it a rest’ have I? Keep those comments to yourself next time if you know what’s better for you.

Pandya will be back in the next test, making those averages better :amir2
Click to expand...

But did I compare Faheem Ashraf's bowling or batting to a one-legged TTF? If you're gonna keep making these sort of statements, it will only backfire as we saw in the last test.
 
Over 1600 Posts of fans fighting to prove which of the two is less mediocre.

Such is the standard of cricket these days it seems :)
 
Who will be a better cricketer in future is anybody's guess. But Faheem can never match up the swag and personality of Pandya. And trust me it plays a big part in a sportsman's life.

Faheem is just a typical bland Pakistani player who has lots of skills but no charisma, no media interaction skills, no bravado etc. Pandya has skills but also has that smug faced swag, that cheeky Kohli'isque personality and always wears that confidence on his sleeves. People like this normally becomes more successful in life.
 
Last edited:
Canford Cliffs said:
Who will be a better cricketer in future is anybody's guess. But Faheem can never match up the swag and personality of Pandya. And trust me it plays a big part in a sportsman's life.

Faheem is just a typical bland Pakistani player who has lots of skills but no charisma, no media interaction skills, no bravado etc. Pandya has skills but also has that smug faced swag, that cheeky Kohli'isque personality and always wears that confidence on his sleeves. People like this normally becomes more successful in life.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Shehzad had all that "swag" and "personality" that some people keep harping about. Where is he now? Look, don't shell something as intricate personality into rolling the collar up, having a smug face and other similar superficial things. Having a personality doesn't necessarily compose of the things you mentioned and that is a very shallow definition. Also, players like Amla, Southee, Boult and Williamson illustrate that there isn't exactly a problem in being humble.

Having said that, I can tell Faheem is quite the cheeky character who would relish getting under the skin of the opposition. Will probably see that after a couple of good series. Still remember Pandya in his early days, looked extremely erratic and didn't look like he belonged. After a couple of good performances, he cooled down considerably and after establishing his place could finally settle into himself. Also, it would be quite funny to see Faheem acting all arrogant when he just started nailing a place in the team.
 
ads101 said:
All I did was take out minnow performances. That's not cherry picking. Can keep the Sri Lankan T20 numbers if you want, Sri Lanka aren't normally minnows but that team they sent out was extremely weak. I remember posters bashing Sri Lanka saying they sent out their E team, wasn't the strength of the team they fielded in ODIs. Excluding minnows is a valid way of assessing players and is done for any player, not exclusively Faheem. Ireland, Zimbabwe (and teams lower than them) just lag behind far too much behind the non-minnows pack. I even consider Bangladesh as non-minnows these days.

He had an alright test career against non-minnows so far, he bowled well in one of the tests, failed with the bat in two. But against England again, nothing was stand out, I didn't see a strike/main bowler in him. I still think to date his bowling in that second test was his best performance so far. If you objectively compare the pacers in the England series, Faheem regardless of stats, had the least impact of all our pacers.


Pandya showed his big hitting abilities early on in ODIs against non-minnow opposition in his first few ODIs. He has a 100 and a 90 odd, the latter in SA in his first five tests. He know has even a 5 wicket haul against England which will win his side the test. There were something that sparked the hype. If Faheem gets a hundred against a non minnow test 5 than fine, but looking at him he doesn't seem capable of that yet.


As I said the biggest difference is the role. Pandya bats higher up, he might even bowl more than Faheem. He's the premier allrounder in his team. He's established as a big hitter which he does do even if he's not as consistent as we'd like. He adds value to the team. And even then I'm not convinced of his ability in tests and would drop him. I think he might even lose his ODI place too, there might be better options. But I understand what he brings to the team. When Faheem comes out, I don't expect big hitting atm. If anything Faheem just feels part of the tail.

Pandya bats at 8 and bowls about 5 overs a game (like a part timer). And is considered only the 2nd best allrounder in his team. What role is that? Even if you compare matches with both Shadab and Faheem, Shadab's been better and showed better potential bat and ball. Even if you compare to the past like Imad, they weren't being underutilised like that. He bats at the bowling slot, but at no point did I think he rivals the bowling abilities such as Amir, Hasan, Abbas, Shadab and others. He just doesn't have the level of the same skill as they do.

That's why you can't compare Pandya and Faheem. One has performances against non-minnow sides. One doesn't. One has showed his potential yet through performances, one hasn't.

You can give Faheem another year of the same bat at no.8 bowl 5 overs, and you'll still get nothing. Because he still won't have the opportunity to perform. Which is why I find it funny people saying only a year, give it time. Most cricketers will get more opportunities in 1 year, than Faheem will get in 3 years in his current role.

He's just been a passenger in our team really against the non-minnow sides. Not given a role. And if the extent of his ability is to be the 8th best batsman in our team, only 2nd best allrounder in our team and not even be good enough to be entrusted 10 overs, then there's no point of him. He's adds nothing. Get in a batsman who is considered good enough to bat above Shadab our spinner. Or get a bowler in (or other bowling allrounder) whom we're actually desperate to bowl 10 overs not fit a few overs here and therein.
Click to expand...

I understand most of what you are saying and agree to an extent.

First of all, you have to understand that team underutilising a player cannot and should not be the basis used to undermine a player's potential. Secondly, the reason I referred to selective filters is that Fahim has played only 3 test matches and 12 ODIs. That hardly seems enough to gauge a player's potential on, but then you go further to remove more matches. That would mean that we are basing someone's potential on just a couple of test matches and 5-6 ODIs. There's quite a high possibility that is one-off, and that is why I feel it's too pre-mature to bring statistics into the game when one has been playing for nearly 3 years and the other is in his first. If you do want to bring statistics, then you would have to make comparisons of each in the initial phases of their respective careers. That's exactly why I quoted the performance of Pandya with similar filters in my previous post. That should effectively portray how ridiculous the argument against Faheem is yet it still ensues. Let's make it simple, how many notable performances of Pandya from his 1st year in International Cricket can be quoted that are comparable to what some expect from Faheem?

Look, like I said before, Pandya is an excellent player, but you don't have to bring down another player to prove it. I mean the proof is in the last couple of days. If Pandya was so superior to Ashraf than why did it take a 5-W haul and a 50 from him for people to wake from their slumber and bump this thread? Let's be honest, if there did exist a massive gulf in between Faheem and Hardik, we wouldn't have seen this thread bulge like no tomorrow.

Allrounders, in general, take time to develop. Players like Stokes, Russel, Holder, Woakes and Pandya are good examples. Very unfair to put down a player just because of lack of opportunities or negligence from the team management.

Another aspect of the argument that needs to be addressed is this whole phenomenon of "impact". First of all, that isn't exactly quantifiable, but even if it was, the argument that Fahim is a lesser all-rounder because he's more of a bowler, something Pakistan has in abundance, is just ludicrous. By that barometer, are all young Pakistani batsmen to be automatically considered better than their Indian counterparts just because the Pakistan XI lacks batting depth? Also, I don't buy that "premiere allrounder" argument. If Shadab is an outrageously gifted player, how exactly would that weaken Fahim's credibility? That's like comparing Pandya to Woakes and saying that Pandya is automatically the better player because he is the premier all-rounder, while Woakes isn't. When comparing two players, we must compare them as overall packages not based on what team they belong to.

ads101 said:
He had an alright test career against non-minnows so far, he bowled well in one of the tests, failed with the bat in two. But against England again, nothing was stand out, I didn't see a strike/main bowler in him. I still think to date his bowling in that second test was his best performance so far. If you objectively compare the pacers in the England series, Faheem regardless of stats, had the least impact of all our pacers.
Click to expand...

Again, you do know that he has only played two test matches against "non-minnows" till date? How someone can extract a judgement from that is quite surprising. Even in them, he got some crucial breakthroughs throughout the series and runs in the first innings that were instrumental in that first win. For reference, how long did it take for Pandya to register a notable bowling performance?

ads101 said:
Pandya --- (I'm assuming you meant Fahim) --- bats at 8 and bowls about 5 overs a game (like a part-timer). And is considered only the 2nd best allrounder in his team. What role is that? Even if you compare matches with both Shadab and Faheem, Shadab's been better and showed better potential bat and ball. Even if you compare to the past like Imad, they weren't being underutilised like that. He bats at the bowling slot
Click to expand...

Not true. Faheem has bowled more than 5 overs in every match apart from 2, if I remember correctly. And both those games were of his first 5. Even if it were true, such an argument is quite futile, since Pakistan is richer in bowling resources and hardly do even our frontline pace attack complete their quota.

Yes, I agree that his batting has been underutilised and the team management is showing quite some negligence. In terms of the potential he possesses, after watching the blistering innings he played against Bangladesh in a warm-up prior to CT 17 and his performances domestic tournaments, I have no doubt in my mind that if he is given an extended run at the all-rounder spot of 6-7, he will flourish.

He's just been a passenger in our team really against the non-minnow sides. Not given a role. And if the extent of his ability is to be the 8th best batsman in our team, only 2nd best allrounder in our team and not even be good enough to be entrusted 10 overs, then there's no point of him. He's adds nothing. Get in a batsman who is considered good enough to bat above Shadab our spinner. Or get a bowler in (or other bowling allrounder) whom we're actually desperate to bowl 10 overs not fit a few overs here and therein.
Click to expand...

Again, him not being given the opportunities that a talented youngster deserves (Pakistan have been doing this lately) is no parameter to judge a player's potential. The player has no influence in the decision-making think tank, hence this argument is quite poor.
 
BlackShadow said:
The guy who averages 13 with bat and 37 with ball when he is not playing minnows.

They call him all-rounder. :wahab2
Click to expand...

I would put Pandya ahead only by virtue of him playing against top flight competition vs Faheem.
 
Pandya is now the integral part of the team. He has made a permanent spot for himself in the team at no. 7 with that 5-fer IMO. He is doing is a fine job for India at this point. Scored a 90 odd in South Africa and now this 5-fer in England.
 
Pandya out for the 7 ball duck. His poor run continues:

Last 8 innings: 31,22,26,11,52,18,4,0

Pandya lacks any kind of discipline/application. He also gets squared up the moment there is a tiny bit of movement. Lots of work to do.
 
Pandya back to mediocre. When he performs after 10 games he'll b 10 times the player faheem is.
 
Team India will need some major remodeling in batting department. Their batting is worse than mediocre overseas. Players like Rahul and Pandya need to play County or other form of international Cricket since they are too raw. Vijay, Pujara, and Rahane should be gone..
 
Last edited:
Time for the bhangra to commence, after a couple of quiet weeks because of his performance in the third Test.

giphy.gif
 
india current team management have no problem with this "Golden boy"if he perform once in blue moon
and than follow with the average performance in rest of series .he might be better than fahim but it means
nothing .What a bizarre test match for him after great last test
 
Our fans bumping this thread as if Faheem would have done anything significant.

Stop making the rest of us look bad.
 
Both are nothing players as of now. But, Faheem may well be out of the team, if he doesn't perform.

Whereas, Superstar Pandya has a fixed quota just like our useless government has.
 
He’s had a poor test. But the usual suspects have learned to hedge their bets after the third test match
 
Mamoon said:
Time for the bhangra to commence, after a couple of quiet weeks because of his performance in the third Test.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Lol that gif clearly signifies which lot among us is desperate here :)) :)) - Your golden boy is a nothing but a rich man's Anwar Ali.....
 
Pete Rose said:
He’s had a poor test. But the usual suspects have learned to hedge their bets after the third test match
Click to expand...
Its getting boring now. There’s only so much you can bash a player, before you realize its not worth it cause that’s all you’ll be doing for the rest of his career :))

A fluke performance here and there doesn’t an all-rounder make. That was my statement after the third test and I actually feel sorry for this talentless bloke now. It’s not really his fault he’s rubbish.
 
Usman Chadda said:
Its getting boring now. There’s only so much you can bash a player, before you realize its not worth it cause that’s all you’ll be doing for the rest of his career :))

A fluke performance here and there doesn’t an all-rounder make. That was my statement after the third test and I actually feel sorry for this talentless bloke now. It’s not really his fault he’s rubbish.
Click to expand...

This! Its getting boring now tbh. I mean props to India and the guy for trying so hard to make it at the highest level magar I guess it was just not meant to be. I wish all the best to him and his supporters for future endeavours.
 
Usman Chadda said:
Its getting boring now. There’s only so much you can bash a player, before you realize its not worth it cause that’s all you’ll be doing for the rest of his career :))

A fluke performance here and there doesn’t an all-rounder make. That was my statement after the third test and I actually feel sorry for this talentless bloke now. It’s not really his fault he’s rubbish.
Click to expand...

Good of you to show up after the third test.
 
What a disappointment this Indian stokes has been!. Stokes is batting and bowling like a pro while his desi malnourished version is embarrassing himself.
 
So final results for both in England:

Faheem: 29.75 for bowling and 18.5 with the bat.

Pandya: 24.7 for bowling and 20.5 with the bat.

Pandya had the better tour (despite Faheem not playing in two out of the four innings) largely due to his performances in the 3rd Test.

Good for him.

Let’s see if Faheem can match (or be better/worse) than Pandya in SA.
 
A big season for Faheem Ashraf coming up. I hope he remains fit and gets to play at atleast three test matches before we get to south africa.
 
ManFan said:
So final results for both in England:

Faheem: 29.75 for bowling and 18.5 with the bat.

Pandya: 24.7 for bowling and 20.5 with the bat.

Pandya had the better tour (despite Faheem not playing in two out of the four innings) largely due to his performances in the 3rd Test.

Good for him.

Let’s see if Faheem can match (or be better/worse) than Pandya in SA.
Click to expand...

I think, his batting average is higher - remained NO once, should be around 23 :)

Having said that, somewhere in this thread, I wrote that Pandeya might lose his IND Test spot unless he improves one skill significantly - that was after SAF tour (and after his 93), it took 4 Tests.

But, Fahim's job is tougher actually. If he is to last long as Test all-rounder, his bowling has to improve up to 4th bowler level. He should play in AUS Tests as 2nd pacer & 5th bowler, as I think PAK should play 3 genuine spinners, but in SAF, Fahim's position isn't secure at all in any equation. He doesn't bat well enough to bat at 7, and he isn't good enough to be 3rd pacer. In SAF, it should be 3 out-right specialist pacers + 1 genuine Leggi & Haris as 5th bowler.
 
Madplayer said:
What a disappointment this Indian stokes has been!. Stokes is batting and bowling like a pro while his desi malnourished version is embarrassing himself.
Click to expand...

Stokes is playing at home while Pandya was playing in his first tour in England.

In India, I can bet Pandya will outperform Stokes.

Pandya is still a wannabe Stokes, but it is not fair to compare both of them when Pandya is playing in his first English tour.
 
1 more year and we can see who is the better performer.

I still believe Pandya is a much better batsman than Ashraf.
Fahem is better bowler than Pandya.
Fielding, Pandya is miles better than Fahem.

I will still pick Pandya over Fahem any day.
 
Pandya the bowler had a good tour.
Pandya the batsman had a very subpar tour.

Still think we need him in AUS. Kohli and co. are right about needing 5 bowlers.
 
Looked a very composed batsman unlike Pandya who looks vulnerable, looked a better batsman minus the hitting muscle power, bowling well as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Andrew Symonds vs Hardik Pandya - Who has made a bigger impression in cricket?
Replies
2
Views
161
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
MenInG
[PICTURES] Faheem Ashraf returns to the fold - but will FA 2.0 be any better than before?
Replies
41
Views
1K
DeadlyVenom
D
BouncerGuy
Faheem Ashraf to lead Pakistan in Hong Kong World Sixes 2024
Replies
29
Views
1K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Ball Blazer
[REPORT] New PCB Central Contracts set to include Fakhar Zaman, Hasan Ali and Faheem Ashraf
Replies
27
Views
1K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
RidiculousMan
Who's the better ODI all-rounder: Shaheen Shah Afridi or Faheem Ashraf?
Replies
55
Views
1K
Hyder
H
Back
Top