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.
Kapil somehow managed to do that and that too as captain.
. Hard to explain in words, he's Pakistan's last greatest superstar. 
.png "Kumar Sangakkara :sanga")
