Nikhil_cric
T20I Star
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Runs
- 31,000
Shahid bhai was a great player no doubt . But he could not win Pakistan a single 50 over World Cup
Kapil somehow managed to do that and that too as captain.

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kindly recheck your stats.
Kapil has a bowling avg of 27 in SENAW.
While you are saying it is 32+.
Secondly what about shakib's bowling stats his stats show that he is nothing more than a parttimer in odis.
I posted his combined bowling avg in SENAW countries,which is 27.View attachment 83450
As i said earlier, he wasn't in a disadvantageous position for bowling on Indian wickets. His poor record in helpful fast bowling condition of SENAW clearly indicates that. This was the main premise of my argument which u clearly failed to understand.
From afridi to imran khan. Shows that this THREAD served you nothing.Best Odi allrounders are
Jacques Kallis Batting avg 45 bowling avg 31
Lance Klusener Batting avg 41 bowling avg 29
Imran khan Batting avg 33 bowling avg 26
and not overhyped Kapil Dev.
From afridi to imran khan. Shows that this THREAD served you nothing.
View attachment 83450
As i said earlier, he wasn't in a disadvantageous position for bowling on Indian wickets. His poor record in helpful fast bowling condition of SENAW clearly indicates that. This was the main premise of my argument which u clearly failed to understand.
Afridi is the ultimate modern day, impact player. He was t20 before there was t20.
Pretty sure that was Jayasuriya.
Nope. AFridi was a better striker of the ball, in terms of SR AND how hard he could actually hit the ball. Sanaths SR of 91 is pedestrian to Afridi's 117, still unmatched in a career that long. Add to that being a superior fielder, a better bowler and a bigger star.
this is called super biased approach. Ignore it.. tullI can't even be bothered to show the stats against this statement anymore.
If you feel Afridi was a better all-arounder than Jayasurya, then good for you.
But you're wrong. That's all I'll say on this topic.
was not a great player was ordinary most of the times.Shahid bhai was a great player no doubt . But he could not win Pakistan a single 50 over World CupKapil somehow managed to do that and that too as captain.
When you get called out for your lies you resort to random and meaningless filters to bend reality.
PotwAfridi's average against non-minnows:-
Bat avg: 22
Bowling avg:- 38
Kapil's average against non-minnows:-
Bat avg:- 23
Bowl avg:- 28
Shakib avg against non-minnows:-
Bat avg:- 32( SR:- 78)
Bowl Avg:- 37
In terms of bowling, Kapil is so far ahead of Afridi/Shakib that it is not even funny.
Case closed.
Why do Pakistani fans admire Afridi, a joke of a player during most of his career, so much even though their Nation has produced so many cricketing legends from Fazal Mehmood to Younis Khan?
Why do Pakistani fans admire Afridi, a joke of a player during most of his career, so much even though their Nation has produced so many cricketing legends from Fazal Mehmood to Younis Khan?
I can't even be bothered to show the stats against this statement anymore.
If you feel Afridi was a better all-arounder than Jayasurya, then good for you.
But you're wrong. That's all I'll say on this topic.
What do you mean? What stats show Sanath could strike the ball harder? Which stats show that Sanath can score faster? I made the statement that Afridi was the first modern cricketer, T20 before T20. You stated Sanath was but the key number here, being the strike rate, does not match. Heck, most can't even match AFridi in ODIs to this day.
Who was the better all rounder is a very different discussion. But that is not what you originally responded to, so if you can't back up what you claim, please stay in your lane.
What do you mean? What stats show Sanath could strike the ball harder? Which stats show that Sanath can score faster? I made the statement that Afridi was the first modern cricketer, T20 before T20. You stated Sanath was but the key number here, being the strike rate, does not match. Heck, most can't even match AFridi in ODIs to this day.
Who was the better all rounder is a very different discussion. But that is not what you originally responded to, so if you can't back up what you claim, please stay in your lane.
Totally wrong.. his high sr due to his (bit) longer innings... most probably his sr will shoot up if his below 20 runs innings excluded...Afridi's SR of 110+ is thanks to many Innings of 10-15 in 5 balls.
.
Afridi's average against non-minnows:-
Bat avg: 22
Bowling avg:- 38
Kapil's average against non-minnows:-
Bat avg:- 23
Bowl avg:- 28
Shakib avg against non-minnows:-
Bat avg:- 32( SR:- 78)
Bowl Avg:- 37
In terms of bowling, Kapil is so far ahead of Afridi/Shakib that it is not even funny.
Case closed.
Was kapil a better bowler than Shakib? Sure he was. But we aren't talking about about who's the better bowler here, we r talkig about who's the better allrounder.
Kapil was miserable with the bat almost everywhere. <B>He averages 19 away from home whereas shakib averages 10/15 runs more than him.</B> Shakib as a batsman is leagues above Kapil Dev.
Therefore, ur attempt to close the case was bit premature I believe.
Then compare their test perfomances as an allrounder in tests. I know this thread isn't about tests. But still consider that format just to get an idea about wfi us the better allrounder in general. Shakib is excellent with the bat across all formats and a great bowler especially under favorable condition(just like all the other spinners).
Now coming to the main point with the bat, Kapil averages 23 at SR 93 while Shakib averages 34 but at a not so good SR of 77. It was tougher for batsmen too in that era just like it is bowlers for this era.
If Shakib would have played in that era, he would have been averaging 32 at a Strike Rate of 65. Kapil averages 23 but at a Strike Rate of 93 away from home. So, it depends on whom you pick with the bat. If I have to make them bat at 7, surely I will put a guy who can strike quite big. So, in that regard, Kapil wins as a batsmen as well and the difference is quite massive with the bowl.
It's harder to normalize different eras, but here is ICC ODI batting rating trend for both ,
View attachment 83569
I'm pretty disappointed with this forum sometimes tbh. Kapil is atleast 10 times the cricketer that Afridi could have ever hoped to be. Kapil was the main strike bowler for a team that had virtually no bowlers besides him. Afridi was the 5th-6th bowling option in a team that had players like Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Amir, Asif, Saqlain, Ajmal etc etc in the line up. Also, it's pretty hilarious to compare Afridi's batting average with Kapil considering the fact that in Kapil's time even highly established batsmen like Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Aravinda De Silva, Richie Richardson, Sunil Gavaskar, Mike Gatting etc etc averaged in the early 30s and even below. In that regard, Kapil's stats as a batsman of 24/95 are very credible for a lower order bat.
Kapil is one of the most impactful cricketers of all time. Afridi was, is and will always be remembered as a bilind slogger who could bowl a bit. End of the story.
I'm pretty disappointed with this forum sometimes tbh. Kapil is atleast 10 times the cricketer that Afridi could have ever hoped to be. Kapil was the main strike bowler for a team that had virtually no bowlers besides him. Afridi was the 5th-6th bowling option in a team that had players like Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Amir, Asif, Saqlain, Ajmal etc etc in the line up. Also, it's pretty hilarious to compare Afridi's batting average with Kapil considering the fact that in Kapil's time even highly established batsmen like Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Aravinda De Silva, Richie Richardson, Sunil Gavaskar, Mike Gatting etc etc averaged in the early 30s and even below. In that regard, Kapil's stats as a batsman of 24/95 are very credible for a lower order bat.
Kapil is one of the most impactful cricketers of all time. Afridi was, is and will always be remembered as a bilind slogger who could bowl a bit. End of the story.
This is ridiculous.
There is a definite comparison to be made. Afridi was a huge match winner, his sheer number of MOM awards attests to that, as does the fact that he played key roles in winning a world t20 and an Asia Cup. If we were talking about tests then fair enough but as a limited overs cricketer, Afridi is right up there with the very best.
This is ridiculous.
There is a definite comparison to be made. Afridi was a huge match winner, his sheer number of MOM awards attests to that, as does the fact that he played key roles in winning a world t20 and an Asia Cup. If we were talking about tests then fair enough but as a limited overs cricketer, Afridi is right up there with the very best.
I think you are confusing a performance after every 25 games to consistently being abysmal in other 24.
But then again, in a team like Pakistan where miraculous happenings are the only way for us to go forward, its not surprising how you rate Afridi.
The other day you did rant about how you have followed my posts and they are useless.
Guess the joke is on you now, rating someone who was more a comedian than a cricketer.
There is no doubt that Kapil vs Afridi in not much of a comparison, but I do not agree with the argument that you have presented, i.e. he performs once in 25 games.
Every player fails more than they succeed, and in a 20 year career, the percentage of failure will always be very high.
With this logic, you can make any player look bad. I will use an outlandish example to get my point across - Tendulkar scored less than 50 runs in 307 out of the 452 innings that he played.
Most players don’t get to play 307 ODIs, but Tendulkar actually failed in that many games. Hence, one of the greatest batsmen in history has a failure rate of nearly 70%, and he did not contribute much without the bat either.
You can do the math for any great player with a long career, and you will find that their rate of failure was high.
The calculations for Afridi are more complicated, not just because he was an all-rounder whose weaker suit was better than Tendulkar’s weaker suit and who was a better fielder as well, but because of his extraordinary strike rate (which batsmen are still struggling to match), and because of his batting position - his low scores usually had more impact than Tendulkar’s low scores, so if we take all these factors into consideration, the failure rate of Afridi is not necessarily going to be higher than the failure rate of Tendulkar.
The lesson that we can learn from this is that looking at the percentage of failures of a player and the x number of times he failed in y number of games is futile - the legacy and the greatness of a player is measured by how often he succeeds, and how he succeeds, and that is why someone like Tendulkar is leagues above Afridi.
Afridi was actually a really good Limited Overs cricketer. He could run through lineups in the right conditions, he could field anywhere and he averaged in the early 20s at a strike rate that was about 30 points higher than what was considered a good strike rate in his era, and around 40 points higher than what was the average strike rate in his era.
He was a very high-impact player, and apart from Australia and India, he would have made any ODI team in the 90s and 2000s.
Australia and India had quality spinners and quality batting lineups, and had batsmen who could hit big, but apart from the likes of Warne, Muralitharan, Kumble, his competition was players like Giles, Boje, Chandana, Dharmasena, Symcox, Arthurton etc., and he was better than them.
Even Brad Hogg, who was marginally better with the ball but couldn’t bat played over a 100 ODIs for Australia when they were extremely strong.
Afridi’s biggest problem was the he was not adaptable. He didn’t have the capacity or the ability to grind down and play according to the situation - his brand of cricket was luxurious, and since Pakistan’s batting was shaky throughout his career, he often became a liability.
Another big factor why he falls short of the league of legendary ODI cricketers is because his bowling lacked bite against quality lineups. He didn’t get smashed, but he couldn’t run through the top teams like he could against the weaker ones. In many ways, he was a minnow basher.
However, partly because of his attitude and other problems, he gets over the top criticism. He was not a comedian and nor was he a pathetic player. He was clearly a very good and high impact Limited Overs player, who would have made most teams of his era in his pomp, but was often a misfit for Pakistan.
Do you think that Afridi would find a place in the South African team of the 90s? They had Lance Klusener who was 10 times the cricketer Afridi could ever hope to be.
There is no doubt that Kapil vs Afridi in not much of a comparison, but I do not agree with the argument that you have presented, i.e. he performs once in 25 games.
Every player fails more than they succeed, and in a 20 year career, the percentage of failure will always be very high.
With this logic, you can make any player look bad. I will use an outlandish example to get my point across - Tendulkar scored less than 50 runs in 307 out of the 452 innings that he played.
Most players don’t get to play 307 ODIs, but Tendulkar actually failed in that many games. Hence, one of the greatest batsmen in history has a failure rate of nearly 70%, and he did not contribute much without the bat either.
You can do the math for any great player with a long career, and you will find that their rate of failure was high.
The calculations for Afridi are more complicated, not just because he was an all-rounder whose weaker suit was better than Tendulkar’s weaker suit and who was a better fielder as well, but because of his extraordinary strike rate (which batsmen are still struggling to match), and because of his batting position - his low scores usually had more impact than Tendulkar’s low scores, so if we take all these factors into consideration, the failure rate of Afridi is not necessarily going to be higher than the failure rate of Tendulkar.
The lesson that we can learn from this is that looking at the percentage of failures of a player and the x number of times he failed in y number of games is futile - the legacy and the greatness of a player is measured by how often he succeeds, and how he succeeds, and that is why someone like Tendulkar is leagues above Afridi.
Afridi was actually a really good Limited Overs cricketer. He could run through lineups in the right conditions, he could field anywhere and he averaged in the early 20s at a strike rate that was about 30 points higher than what was considered a good strike rate in his era, and around 40 points higher than what was the average strike rate in his era.
He was a very high-impact player, and apart from Australia and India, he would have made any ODI team in the 90s and 2000s.
Australia and India had quality spinners and quality batting lineups, and had batsmen who could hit big, but apart from the likes of Warne, Muralitharan, Kumble, his competition was players like Giles, Boje, Chandana, Dharmasena, Symcox, Arthurton etc., and he was better than them.
Even Brad Hogg, who was marginally better with the ball but couldn’t bat played over a 100 ODIs for Australia when they were extremely strong.
Afridi’s biggest problem was the he was not adaptable. He didn’t have the capacity or the ability to grind down and play according to the situation - his brand of cricket was luxurious, and since Pakistan’s batting was shaky throughout his career, he often became a liability.
Another big factor why he falls short of the league of legendary ODI cricketers is because his bowling lacked bite against quality lineups. He didn’t get smashed, but he couldn’t run through the top teams like he could against the weaker ones. In many ways, he was a minnow basher.
However, partly because of his attitude and other problems, he gets over the top criticism. He was not a comedian and nor was he a pathetic player. He was clearly a very good and high impact Limited Overs player, who would have made most teams of his era in his pomp, but was often a misfit for Pakistan.
His ability to run through a side with the ball actually only cane to the fore around 2004 onwards. Between 96 and 2003, Afridi was probably the least impactful cricketer playing international cricket for so long. Back then his main suit was considered to be batting and even then his performances were few and far between. Between 2004-2011 , he remodelled himself as a bowling all-rounder and I agree that he was impactful overall in this period. However, in this thread hw is being compared to one of the ATG all-rounders and him being better than the likes of boje, symcox is hardly good enough to consider him among the atg all-rounders.
His ability to run through a side with the ball actually only cane to the fore around 2004 onwards. Between 96 and 2003, Afridi was probably the least impactful cricketer playing international cricket for so long. Back then his main suit was considered to be batting and even then his performances were few and far between. Between 2004-2011 , he remodelled himself as a bowling all-rounder and I agree that he was impactful overall in this period. However, in this thread hw is being compared to one of the ATG all-rounders and him being better than the likes of boje, symcox is hardly good enough to consider him among the atg all-rounders.
There is no doubt that Kapil vs Afridi in not much of a comparison, but I do not agree with the argument that you have presented, i.e. he performs once in 25 games.
Every player fails more than they succeed, and in a 20 year career, the percentage of failure will always be very high.
With this logic, you can make any player look bad. I will use an outlandish example to get my point across - Tendulkar scored less than 50 runs in 307 out of the 452 innings that he played.
Most players don’t get to play 307 ODIs, but Tendulkar actually failed in that many games. Hence, one of the greatest batsmen in history has a failure rate of nearly 70%, and he did not contribute much without the bat either.
You can do the math for any great player with a long career, and you will find that their rate of failure was high.
The calculations for Afridi are more complicated, not just because he was an all-rounder whose weaker suit was better than Tendulkar’s weaker suit and who was a better fielder as well, but because of his extraordinary strike rate (which batsmen are still struggling to match), and because of his batting position - his low scores usually had more impact than Tendulkar’s low scores, so if we take all these factors into consideration, the failure rate of Afridi is not necessarily going to be higher than the failure rate of Tendulkar.
The lesson that we can learn from this is that looking at the percentage of failures of a player and the x number of times he failed in y number of games is futile - the legacy and the greatness of a player is measured by how often he succeeds, and how he succeeds, and that is why someone like Tendulkar is leagues above Afridi.
Afridi was actually a really good Limited Overs cricketer. He could run through lineups in the right conditions, he could field anywhere and he averaged in the early 20s at a strike rate that was about 30 points higher than what was considered a good strike rate in his era, and around 40 points higher than what was the average strike rate in his era.
He was a very high-impact player, and apart from Australia and India, he would have made any ODI team in the 90s and 2000s.
Australia and India had quality spinners and quality batting lineups, and had batsmen who could hit big, but apart from the likes of Warne, Muralitharan, Kumble, his competition was players like Giles, Boje, Chandana, Dharmasena, Symcox, Arthurton etc., and he was better than them.
Even Brad Hogg, who was marginally better with the ball but couldn’t bat played over a 100 ODIs for Australia when they were extremely strong.
Afridi’s biggest problem was the he was not adaptable. He didn’t have the capacity or the ability to grind down and play according to the situation - his brand of cricket was luxurious, and since Pakistan’s batting was shaky throughout his career, he often became a liability.
Another big factor why he falls short of the league of legendary ODI cricketers is because his bowling lacked bite against quality lineups. He didn’t get smashed, but he couldn’t run through the top teams like he could against the weaker ones. In many ways, he was a minnow basher.
However, partly because of his attitude and other problems, he gets over the top criticism. He was not a comedian and nor was he a pathetic player. He was clearly a very good and high impact Limited Overs player, who would have made most teams of his era in his pomp, but was often a misfit for Pakistan.
Of course he is not an all-time great, but some people could with ridiculous logics to prove that he was a rubbish, comedian cricketer which he clearly was not.
Afridi between 1996 and 2003 was misused by Pakistan, who converted him into an opener because of that fluke hundred in Kenya in a pint-sized ground.
He was never capable enough to be an opener, but a batsman who averaged in the 20s at a strike rate of 110 at a time when a strike rate of 70 was the norm would have been very useful down the order, especially when he could bowl and field really well.
If people want to categorize Afridi as a utility or a bits and pieces player, then he is by far the greatest utility/bits and pieces player of all time.
Yes, Afridi was basically a part-timer with the ball till 2004. He improved his bowling since 2004 though and was very impactful between 2004-11.
Also, many confuse his T20 performance with ODIs and start calling him a brilliant all-rounder. His legacy if we consider only ODIs is not much to talk about.
Of course he is not an all-time great, but some people could with ridiculous logics to prove that he was a rubbish, comedian cricketer which he clearly was not.
Afridi between 1996 and 2003 was misused by Pakistan, who converted him into an opener because of that fluke hundred in Kenya in a pint-sized ground.
He was never capable enough to be an opener, but a batsman who averaged in the 20s at a strike rate of 110 at a time when a strike rate of 70 was the norm would have been very useful down the order, especially when he could bowl and field really well.
If people want to categorize Afridi as a utility or a bits and pieces player, then he is by far the greatest utility/bits and pieces player of all time.
Afridis real worth as a player is often lost between two extremes - he was not the legendary ATG cricketer that his fans think, but neither was he the awful player that his detractors make him look to be.
For around 10-15 years, he was one of the best players in his position/role. Apart from Warne, Muralitharan and Kumble, most spinners of his time were more or less at the same level with the ball, or perhaps slightly better, but they were tailenders.
He was always a talented bowler, and it is not a coincidence that his bowling improved as soon as he started to play as a specialist spinner who could whack the ball, and that should always have been his role.
Pakistan tried very hard to mould into a hard hitting opening batsman who could blow away the opposition, basically their own version of Jayasuriya, but he was nowhere near that caliber.
He made it to the national team based on his bowling, but that one innings changed the perception of the PCB and and the general public of who he was as a player, and it dented his career considerably.
I felt Afridi was quite talented with the bat. It is not as easy to hit fastest hundred vs Vaas and Murali. He showed that glimpse there itself.But he just didnt applied enough with the bat and kept his brain away in the dressing room when he came to bat, which is why people are labelling him as a comedian kind of cricketer.
He could have been the McCullum level with the bat for Pak, also being equally effective bowler. He was a spin bowler, so workload shouldn't have been of much issue.
If Afridi would have played for any top team and played the way cricket should be played, he would have become a 30 averaging batsmen and still being as good with the bowl.
Afridi was a very talented striker, but there is more to batting than that. <B>His defensive technique and mentality was poor, and it was the main reason why he could not play according to the situation</B>.
I remember the hundred against India in Kanpur in 2005, where he beat the living daylights out of Zaheer, Pathan and Harbhajan en route to a 45 ball ton, but he was clean bowled on the very first delivery he tried to defend.
I don’t think he could have averaged around 30-35 at a strike rate of 85-90. A slogger like him could not do that.
There is no doubt that Kapil vs Afridi in not much of a comparison, but I do not agree with the argument that you have presented, i.e. he performs once in 25 games.
Every player fails more than they succeed, and in a 20 year career, the percentage of failure will always be very high.
With this logic, you can make any player look bad. I will use an outlandish example to get my point across - Tendulkar scored less than 50 runs in 307 out of the 452 innings that he played.
Most players don’t get to play 307 ODIs, but Tendulkar actually failed in that many games. Hence, one of the greatest batsmen in history has a failure rate of nearly 70%, and he did not contribute much without the bat either.
You can do the math for any great player with a long career, and you will find that their rate of failure was high.
The calculations for Afridi are more complicated, not just because he was an all-rounder whose weaker suit was better than Tendulkar’s weaker suit and who was a better fielder as well, but because of his extraordinary strike rate (which batsmen are still struggling to match), and because of his batting position - his low scores usually had more impact than Tendulkar’s low scores, so if we take all these factors into consideration, the failure rate of Afridi is not necessarily going to be higher than the failure rate of Tendulkar.
The lesson that we can learn from this is that looking at the percentage of failures of a player and the x number of times he failed in y number of games is futile - the legacy and the greatness of a player is measured by how often he succeeds, and how he succeeds, and that is why someone like Tendulkar is leagues above Afridi.
Afridi was actually a really good Limited Overs cricketer. He could run through lineups in the right conditions, he could field anywhere and he averaged in the early 20s at a strike rate that was about 30 points higher than what was considered a good strike rate in his era, and around 40 points higher than what was the average strike rate in his era.
He was a very high-impact player, and apart from Australia and India, he would have made any ODI team in the 90s and 2000s.
Australia and India had quality spinners and quality batting lineups, and had batsmen who could hit big, but apart from the likes of Warne, Muralitharan, Kumble, his competition was players like Giles, Boje, Chandana, Dharmasena, Symcox, Arthurton etc., and he was better than them.
Even Brad Hogg, who was marginally better with the ball but couldn’t bat played over a 100 ODIs for Australia when they were extremely strong.
Afridi’s biggest problem was the he was not adaptable. He didn’t have the capacity or the ability to grind down and play according to the situation - his brand of cricket was luxurious, and since Pakistan’s batting was shaky throughout his career, he often became a liability.
Another big factor why he falls short of the league of legendary ODI cricketers is because his bowling lacked bite against quality lineups. He didn’t get smashed, but he couldn’t run through the top teams like he could against the weaker ones. In many ways, he was a minnow basher.
However, partly because of his attitude and other problems, he gets over the top criticism. He was not a comedian and nor was he a pathetic player. He was clearly a very good and high impact Limited Overs player, who would have made most teams of his era in his pomp, but was often a misfit for Pakistan.
I think you are confusing a performance after every 25 games to consistently being abysmal in other 24.
But then again, in a team like Pakistan where miraculous happenings are the only way for us to go forward, its not surprising how you rate Afridi.
The other day you did rant about how you have followed my posts and they are useless.
Guess the joke is on you now, rating someone who was more a comedian than a cricketer.
Does Kapil Dev have a higher combination of wickets and runs than Afridi in ODIs?