How can die-hard Shahid Afridi fans defend these stats?

[sshakir411]

I find it funny that people try to rationalize Afridi. He was an enigma, no one knew what and how he was...he just was..it will never make sense. He overstayed his time, hogged the captaincy and a spot in the team, but there are few with the pull he had with fans.

 

[Markhor]

Stats aside, how can you respect someone who ran like a hare despite being captain in the middle of a foreign tour ?

Afridi then had the nerve to say he suspected fixing after the scandal erupted yet didn't utter a word previously about it.

As for him being the "template T20 player" - there are now plenty of players who do what Afridi does and far better. I'm all for aggressive batting but Afridi wasn't even good for that beyond a once in a blue moon performance. Once his reflexes and hand-eye coordination faded, his batting was tail-ender level.

For all the talk of him being "an aggressive beast" he was anything but that as captain. He was reactive and defensive with no tactical nous or ability to spot a player.

 

[MenInG]

Afridi is special - mere stats dont describe him and we all know that! No point putting numbers to measure his importance.

 

[Saj]

The 37 ball century was his undoing with the bat.

It was almost like every time he went to bat he had to bat like that day in Nairobi.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Stats aside, how can you respect someone who ran like a hare despite being captain in the middle of a foreign tour ?

Afridi then had the nerve to say he suspected fixing after the scandal erupted yet didn't utter a word previously about it.

As for him being the "template T20 player" - there are now plenty of players who do what Afridi does and far better. I'm all for aggressive batting but Afridi wasn't even good for that beyond a once in a blue moon performance. Once his reflexes and hand-eye coordination faded, his batting was tail-ender level.

For all the talk of him being "an aggressive beast" he was anything but that as captain. He was reactive and defensive with no tactical nous or ability to spot a player.

The data clearly says he was a good batsman and he was also a good bowler.

World class player but people don't understand limited overs.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Afridi is special - mere stats dont describe him and we all know that! No point putting numbers to measure his importance.

Even stats support how good he was, but people don't know how to analyze the stats.

In any white ball cricket, he is an ATG.

 

[Hermoine Green]

Stats aside, how can you respect someone who ran like a hare despite being captain in the middle of a foreign tour ?

Afridi then had the nerve to say he suspected fixing after the scandal erupted yet didn't utter a word previously about it.

As for him being the "template T20 player" - there are now plenty of players who do what Afridi does and far better. I'm all for aggressive batting but Afridi wasn't even good for that beyond a once in a blue moon performance. Once his reflexes and hand-eye coordination faded, his batting was tail-ender level.

For all the talk of him being "an aggressive beast" he was anything but that as captain. He was reactive and defensive with no tactical nous or ability to spot a player.

Name few please, we need them badly

 

[Raja Sab]

OP it shows you how good Afridi was, fans all over the world loved him and threw the stats in bin

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Afridi is special - mere stats dont describe him and we all know that! No point putting numbers to measure his importance.

Contrary to popular beliefs Afridi actually can be analyzed in quantifiable metrics to illustrate his distinct value in the team however, it will take a lot of digging & a bit of left-field simplification to formulate something which an average fan would understand (right off the bat i.e)

For Example, and I'll use basic stats here, if you just take the Standard deviation of his scores from a certain era, mark a spread (Range Risk) on that metric in comparison to his peers based on 1st or 2nd innings, calculate the subsequent variance and then graph it using any coherent charting mechnism then you'll, at least, find why his style of play suited us.

Now add his mid-innings Limited overs bowling into the mix and you'll get a very handly lower order clean hitter and a gun Leg spinner (in his prime days). I understand people bring up his 'failures' quite a bit but I believe that was just because of his role in the team (which the management were ok with) and with that batting style you get extremes on both ends of the pendulum.

 

[Markhor]

The data clearly says he was a good batsman and he was also a good bowler.

World class player but people don't understand limited overs.

18@150 is world class ?

Produce the data and compare with other all rounders in T20Is and we can analyse instead of saying we mere mortals don't understand.

 

[Markhor]

Name few please, we need them badly

Who are better power hitting All Rounders than Afridi in International cricket ? Maxwell, Ali, Stokes, Pandya to name four.

If you're talking about Pakistan, Nasir Nawaz, Hussain Talat, Fahim Ashraf all have more potential.

 

[Hermoine Green]

Who are better powerhitting ARs than Afridi in international cricket ? Maxwell, Ali, Stokes, Pandya to name four.

If you're talking about Pakistan, Nasir Nawaz, Hussain Talat, Fahim Ashraf all have more potential.

Maxy is half decent, poorest bowler among all of the names you have mentioned. Stokes.. He ain't a hard hitting batsman and half decent bowler he is. Ali is a hard hitter? Poor bowler ) And Pandya, a spin basher and a poor bowler.

As an AR Afridi is better than all of the names you have mentioned above.

And if you think Pakistan have AR or Hard hitting lower down batsmen like him, then i wonder why we aren' have one in our team? Why we are still depending upon Imad, Shadab e.t.c And the names you have mentioned in Pakistan, Faheem is a good batsman but a poor bowler, Hussain Talat can't be regarded as a hard hitting batsman, and i won't even talk about his bowling, Nasir Nawaz seems a good prospect but he won't match Afridi in any terms.

It would have been interesting if you have mentioned Sohail Akhter name, who can match Afridi in power hitting but again, not a good bowler.


He don't have some glorious stats, but if we talk about impact, then surely he made some.

 

[Hermoine Green]

18@150 is world class ?

Produce the data and compare with other all rounders in T20Is and we can analyse instead of saying we mere mortals don't understand.

And 97 wickets @24avg. Drag an AR who have stats like these? Specifically not glorious, but as an AR, surely better than all AR in T20 game.

 

[Markhor]

And 97 wickets @24avg. Drag an AR who have stats like these? Specifically not glorious, but as an AR, surely better than all AR in T20 game.

Afridi was a better leggie than a batsman (he conveniently flipped between calling himself a batting AR and a bowling AR depending on his form), but his legspin declined after the 2011 World Cup and he hung onto his spot far too long.

He averaged 38 with the ball in ODIs vs non-minnows after the 2011 WC which is atrocious for a "bowling AR" and 32 with the ball against non-minnows in T20s.

What about his batting in the same timeframe ? 22 at SR of 132 in ODIs and 18 at SR of 152. Hardly irreplaceable stuff. Yes your SR will look terrific if your contributions amount to 20 off 11 balls which was Afridi's standard but these knocks usually had no effect on the outcome of a match. How many matches did Afridi contribute to winning in LOIs in the last five years of his career ? The Sharjah 2011 and Guyana 2013 ODIs are the only ones I can recall.

When he wasn't contributing on the field, he was biting the ball, running away from tours halfway through, announcing "conditional retirements" and captaining the side woefully with an appalling selection strategy and blatant favouritism with players like Ahmed Shehzad.

 

[JattMaula]

Don't need to defend him to anybody.

 

[Mr.Q]

Well it's true that he is a great entertainer. But can such a player be part of an international squad? I can imagine such a player being a star or an 'icon' in a domestic league where entertainment is arguably more important than winning in a way. But when you're on international duty you're representing your country and victory is more important than 'entertainment'. You have to assess the situation, your role and play accordingly. Stats don't tell you everything but when someone averages below 25 with the bat and holds an important position in the batting lineup, there's some problem. Can't blame him because nobody demanded a change. Why fix something that's not broken. I feel most of the comments in his defence come more from the heart than from the brain which is totally understandable from a fan's perspective because of the way he played. I'm talking from a team's perspective where a Babar Azam even at this nascent stage of his career is a better and more important player because he wins games for his country consistently.

The negative contribution argument raised by someone here is quite bizarre. Strike rates are totally dependent on match situation and team composition for a player who plays according to it. For someone who bats the same way irrespective of the situation it'll stay in a narrow range. Comparing two players based on their career strike rates without considering the match situation and team composition is absolutely ridiculous. I hope he stops unloading that theory on us.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Well it's true that he is a great entertainer. But can such a player be part of an international squad? I can imagine such a player being a star or an 'icon' in a domestic league where entertainment is arguably more important than winning in a way. But when you're on international duty you're representing your country and victory is more important than 'entertainment'. You have to assess the situation, your role and play accordingly. Stats don't tell you everything but when someone averages below 25 with the bat and holds an important position in the batting lineup, there's some problem. Can't blame him because nobody demanded a change. Why fix something that's not broken. I feel most of the comments in his defence come more from the heart than from the brain which is totally understandable from a fan's perspective because of the way he played. I'm talking from a team's perspective where a Babar Azam even at this nascent stage of his career is a better and more important player because he wins games for his country consistently.

The negative contribution argument raised by someone here is quite bizarre. Strike rates are totally dependent on match situation and team composition for a player who plays according to it. For someone who bats the same way irrespective of the situation it'll stay in a narrow range. Comparing two players based on their career strike rates without considering the match situation and team composition is absolutely ridiculous. I hope he stops unloading that theory on us.

You don't understand the first thing about white-ball cricket.

The reality is I DID an analysis on match situations and contributions with regard to Steve Smith making this same point yesterday. Read it.

He played two OK innings out of his last 11 T20 matches, 3 match-losing innings much worse than a first-ball duck and the rest were about as good as a first ball duck.

I can do it for Afridi as well and you will see why he is a great T20 batsman even nearing the end of his career.

 

[Mr.Q]

You don't understand the first thing about white-ball cricket.

The reality is I DID an analysis on match situations and contributions with regard to Steve Smith making this same point yesterday. Read it.

He played two OK innings out of his last 11 T20 matches, 3 match-losing innings much worse than a first-ball duck and the rest were about as good as a first ball duck.

I can do it for Afridi as well and you will see why he is a great T20 batsman even nearing the end of his career.

ok I don't understand white ball cricket . I'm sorry if I offended you.

But you seem to be missing the point. T20 is not the primary white ball format. It's the ODIs I was talking about and I quoted his average in ODIs. Less than 25. The beauty of 50 over game is that short lived spikes here and there wouldn't affect the final score much. You have to bat well consistently as a team to get to a good score. And similarly, during a chase if you hit a couple of sixes and get out, you're not doing your team any good. It puts a lot of pressure on the other batters and the high strike rate is often cancelled out by the no. of balls it takes a new batsman to acclimatise with the pitch and the match situation.

In T20 a couple of overs can change the game. Just like Test cricket suiting Smith's technique, T20 suits Afridi's batting style and technique. It's not a fair comparison I know (a look at Gayle's stats tells you why) but I'm giving it to Afridi in T20s so that the focus remains on ODIs.

Afridi wasn't part of a side that was consistently putting huge totals on the board in ODIs. His contribution was important. He was an important, senior player in the team. Less than 25 runs per game on average just isn't good enough for any team. That average-strike rate equation and that negative contribution thing are completely flawed because so many variables aren't considered. And more importantly it's based on the assumption that the batsman who walks in next is going to smash the ball to all corners of the ground which is often not the case . There is a reason why the stats of players considered to be 'great' show a common trend in average. Average is more important than strike rate when you consider someone's career. Again T20 format might be an exception as you often find yourself in situations where the strike rate is more important than average. Maybe your theory will fare better if you restrict it to T20s.

My stand is very clear on this. I'm of the opinion that Pakistan doesn't need another Afridi in the team. He was a great entertainer who won more hearts than matches which is very evident from his popularity and some of the posts here . I do not wish to hurt his supporters and criticising him now after his retirement is pointless. So I don't plan to post more on this topic.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

ok I don't understand white ball cricket . I'm sorry if I offended you.

But you seem to be missing the point. T20 is not the primary white ball format. It's the ODIs I was talking about and I quoted his average in ODIs. Less than 25. The beauty of 50 over game is that short lived spikes here and there wouldn't affect the final score much. You have to bat well consistently as a team to get to a good score. And similarly, during a chase if you hit a couple of sixes and get out, you're not doing your team any good. It puts a lot of pressure on the other batters and the high strike rate is often cancelled out by the no. of balls it takes a new batsman to acclimatise with the pitch and the match situation.

In T20 a couple of overs can change the game. Just like Test batting suiting Smith's technique, T20 suits Afridi's batting style and technique. It's not a fair comparison I know (a look at Gayle's stats tells you why) but I'm giving it to Afridi in T20s so that the focus remains on ODIs.

Afridi wasn't part of a side that was consistently putting huge totals on the board in ODIs. His contribution was important. He was an important, senior player in the team. Less than 25 runs per game on average just isn't good enough for any team. That average-strike rate equation and that negative contribution thing are completely flawed because so many variables aren't considered. And more importantly it's based on the assumption that the batsman who walks in next is going to smash the ball to all corners of the ground which is often not the case . There is a reason why the stats of players considered to be 'great' show a common trend in average. Average is more important than strike rate when you consider someone's career. Again T20 format might be an exception as you often find yourself in situations where the strike rate is more important than average. Maybe your theory will fare better if you restrict it to T20s.

My stand is very clear on this. I'm of the opinion that Pakistan doesn't need another Afridi in the team. He was a great entertainer who won more hearts than matches which is very evident from his popularity and some of the posts here . I do not wish to hurt his supporters and criticising him now after his retirement is pointless. So I don't plan to post more on this topic.

First of all T20 is the primary white ball format at the moment, like it or not. But since 'primary', 'better' etc are very subjective terms leave it and let's deal with your claim that he was bad at ODI.

Point 1: This entire discussion the way you are doing it, is a concession that you are evaluating him as a pure batsman, and this is a player who was good enough for most of his career as a bowler alone. That alone says how good the man was.

Point 2: You say 25 runs isn't good enough. That's a very very shallow analysis. You say that I'm ignoring context but you have 0 context in this assertion.

Point 3: For most of Afridi's career par scores were much lower than present. So let's look at it. You think 25/1 before the game starts, with 50 overs left isn't good? It is absolutely massive advantage. Any side would take it. Obviously he took longer than that but my point is, saying "25 isn't enough" is completely without context and untrue.

Point 4: You say my assumption is that the next guy will smash it to all corners. No. In fact that's your assumption. Relatively speaking, Pakistan lacked fast scorers much more than guys who could play a slow, safe innings. Afridi compensated for a lot of slow selfish batting by people you are claiming to be better even though they were not.

Point 5: "Average is more important than SR": You gave 0 evidence for this claim. In fact the two are complementary and both are required. Once your SR is below a certain level, the higher the average, the worse your impact.

In modern ODI SR below 80 is basically eating up balls and putting pressure on others.

If you use Avg*SR/100 (as a rough measure of true average) :

Misbah= 32.00
Afridi=27.57
Younis Khan=23.52
M. Yousuf= 31.32
Umar Akmal= 29.57
Hafeez= 24.85
Shoaib Malik= 29.31
Asad Shafiq= 16.57
Inzamam= 29.33

I've provided as reference figures of lots of Pakistan batsmen as reference for comparison. Now you tell me why you think their contributions are better.

Do you think 40/1 in 10 overs is a better score than 23/1 in 3 overs? If not why do you prefer these tuk-tuks to Afridi? That is literally what Misbah and Younus are doing compared to what Afridi did.

And if you say I'm not looking at match context, show me some reasonable sample of score cards and I will show you the context.

 

[Mr.Q]

First of all T20 is the primary white ball format at the moment, like it or not. But since 'primary', 'better' etc are very subjective terms leave it and let's deal with your claim that he was bad at ODI.

Point 1: This entire discussion the way you are doing it, is a concession that you are evaluating him as a pure batsman, and this is a player who was good enough for most of his career as a bowler alone. That alone says how good the man was.

Point 2: You say 25 runs isn't good enough. That's a very very shallow analysis. You say that I'm ignoring context but you have 0 context in this assertion.

Point 3: For most of Afridi's career par scores were much lower than present. So let's look at it. You think 25/1 before the game starts, with 50 overs left isn't good? It is absolutely massive advantage. Any side would take it. Obviously he took longer than that but my point is, saying "25 isn't enough" is completely without context and untrue.

Point 4: You say my assumption is that the next guy will smash it to all corners. No. In fact that's your assumption. Relatively speaking, Pakistan lacked fast scorers much more than guys who could play a slow, safe innings. Afridi compensated for a lot of slow selfish batting by people you are claiming to be better even though they were not.

Point 5: "Average is more important than SR": You gave 0 evidence for this claim. In fact the two are complementary and both are required. Once your SR is below a certain level, the higher the average, the worse your impact.

In modern ODI SR below 80 is basically eating up balls and putting pressure on others.

If you use Avg*SR/100 (as a rough measure of true average) :

Misbah= 32.00
Afridi=27.57
Younis Khan=23.52
M. Yousuf= 31.32
Umar Akmal= 29.57
Hafeez= 24.85
Shoaib Malik= 29.31
Asad Shafiq= 16.57
Inzamam= 29.33

I've provided as reference figures of lots of Pakistan batsmen as reference for comparison. Now you tell me why you think their contributions are better.

Do you think 40/1 in 10 overs is a better score than 23/1 in 3 overs? If not why do you prefer these tuk-tuks to Afridi? That is literally what Misbah and Younus are doing compared to what Afridi did.

And if you say I'm not looking at match context, show me some reasonable sample of score cards and I will show you the context.

1) I'll always consider him as a batsman. That's what he's known for and was his primary role in the team for a long time until he needed to bring back his bowling to stay in the team. He was a decent bowler and might have made it to the team when Pakistan cricket was going through a rough patch. Would he be a part of the current ODI bowling lineup? No. And by the way, there's a difference between somehow making it to the team and being called a 'great'.

2) A batting average of 23.58 is way too low for a batsman who batted 369 times irrespective of context. There's no way anybody can justify that.

3) As an opener his SR was close to 101. He scored at a high SR as no.7. Imagine going from 180/5 to 210/6. I wont take it.

4) I was talking about your theory of negative contribution based on which a batsman forfeits his wicket because he cant score at 150 or something.

5) Stats are there for you to see. In ODIs it's very important to have a good average. Strike rate is definitely not as important. When we rate players we look at average first. Then strike rate. Then 100s and conversion rate. Then the ratio between good scores and the number of times the team won when that happened.

If you're trying to say with your formula (a very strange one) that Afridi was almost as good as an Inzamam, okay! None of the other batsmen except Yousuf were anywhere close to becoming a 'great' in ODIs.

These lines from cricbuzz sums up Afridi well: "For the next few years, Afridi's batting took prominence after hitting that ton. He soon became a crowd-puller for just his eccentric batting. As entertaining as it was to the viewers, it sometimes proved to be infuriating to his teammates. His then captain, Wasim Akram, had repeatedly asked him not to throw his wicket away, but nothing could change Afridi's ways."

Anyways you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just stating mine.

And yes I would take 40/1 after 10 overs over 23/1 after 3 overs. Reasons are so many and beyond the scope of this thread. I'd just sign off by saying that cricket is not a game of numbers.

 

[Saj]

Anyone who has 5 Test centuries is no mug with the bat. However I felt that he never took his batting as seriously as he should have. It was almost like once some of the seior players retired he thought to hell with it, I'll just go out there and have a whack.

 

[hadi123]

Anyone who has 5 Test centuries is no mug with the bat. However I felt that he never took his batting as seriously as he should have. It was almost like once some of the seior players retired he thought to hell with it, I'll just go out there and have a whack.

Very good point as we all know he had the ability to play more seriously as shown on some occasions but there were many instances when he came in and just had a whack when the situation didn't need that. No doubt a lot of his low scores were more to his lack of reading the game situation rather than good bowling