Michael Vaughan names Babar Azam among top-three Pakistan batters of all-time

[aukhan]

Babar is now officially the most capped Pakistani player in T20Is. Can someone post his Player of the Match records against each opposition in this format? how does he compare to our T20I legends like Gul, Malik, Afridi, Kamran, Ajmal, and Hafeez in terms of Player of the Match awards?

 

[Mobashir]

I guess you forgot aussie test series

He was very poor in that. Aussies dominated him

That makes Sohail better than him in ODI's.

 

[Hitman]

9 out of 100 odd is “hardly anyone”

Hardly anyone in a decade would suggest maybe 2/3/4 batsman whom you wanted to pass off primarily as Viv and Miandad, not 9 batsman

And if I reduce the criteria to players having played 30 matches or more, the number of batsman increases even further.

 

[zaidihusain]

People should not take Michael Vaughan seriously.

 

[NishanKonar]

People should not take Michael Vaughan seriously.

Michael Vaughan is a sharp guy but on twitter he turns into a edgelord like Mamoon to get more engagement. It looks childish / immature on his part but that what social media is all about. BUt I doubt he is like that in real life. Just look at how he mud wrestles with Wasim Jaffer & others on twitter. Hard to believe that 50 year olds will ever behave like that in real life

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I don't think so he could be in top 10 but top 3 is very relative opinion

 

[Ab Fan]

Best batters to come from Pakistan:-

Javed Miandad
Inzamam ul haq
Younis Khan
Saeed Anwar
Mohammad Yousuf
Zaheer Abbas

That’s top 6. Babar can be #7 and comparable to Majid Khan, Saleem Malik, Azhar Ali and Shoaib Malik.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

I don't think so he could be in top 10 but top 3 is very relative opinion

that is the reason why he scored 3 runs today lol

 

[mominsaigol]

Best batters to come from Pakistan:-

Javed Miandad
Inzamam ul haq
Younis Khan
Saeed Anwar
Mohammad Yousuf
Zaheer Abbas

That’s top 6. Babar can be #7 and comparable to Majid Khan, Saleem Malik, Azhar Ali and Shoaib Malik.

Hilarious that you put azhar Ali and shoaib Malik over the Likes of Ijaz Ahmed

 

[TheSultan]

Hardly anyone in a decade would suggest maybe 2/3/4 batsman whom you wanted to pass off primarily as Viv and Miandad, not 9 batsman

And if I reduce the criteria to players having played 30 matches or more, the number of batsman increases even further.

you can change the criteria all you want. Even 40 games is too small a sample size for a career.

I would say 70 matches minimum. It does remove one of my faves Zaheer from the list, but we’ve got to do things right.

If you take 70 matches it’s only about 5 people (and what a lineup)

Greenidge
Haynes
IVA Richards
Javed Miandad

Great top 4

And err Allan Lamb but tbf he was a great ODI player.

 

[mominsaigol]

you can change the criteria all you want. Even 40 games is too small a sample size for a career.

I would say 70 matches minimum. It does remove one of my faves Zaheer from the list, but we’ve got to do things right.

If you take 70 matches it’s only about 5 people (and what a lineup)

Greenidge
Haynes
IVA Richards
Javed Miandad

Great top 4

And err Allan Lamb but tbf he was a great ODI player.

Zaheer only played 60 odi's though?

 

[TheSultan]

Zaheer only played 60 odi's though?

Yea don’t know why - but based on that he doesn’t make the cut for this analysis unfortunately

 

[mominsaigol]

Yea don’t know why - but based on that he doesn’t make the cut for this analysis unfortunately

I still think you should include him.

Zaheer abass would have avg the same had he played 10 more games. He was a class act and one of the best in that era.

A consistsnt batter like him wouldn't suddenly fail 10 games in a row and have his avg drop. He ain't Babar azam.

Infact zaheer was one of the most consistent batters in asia of all time.

 

[Hitman]

you can change the criteria all you want. Even 40 games is too small a sample size for a career.

I would say 70 matches minimum. It does remove one of my faves Zaheer from the list, but we’ve got to do things right.

If you take 70 matches it’s only about 5 people (and what a lineup)

Greenidge
Haynes
IVA Richards
Javed Miandad

Great top 4

And err Allan Lamb but tbf he was a great ODI player.

7 people, not 5. By the way, number of innings matters, not matches

Link: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

'9 out of 100 is equal to hardly anyone'

Didn't you say the above?

Well, only 34 batsmen played 70 innings or more in that decade. 7 out of 34 of those batsman averaging 40 or more is that decade is hardly anyone?

Once again, what did you say? That 9 out of 100 is equal to hardly anyone?

So what exactly is 7 out of 34?

 

[TheSultan]

7 people, not 5. By the way, number of innings matters, not matches

Link: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

'9 out of 100 is equal to hardly anyone'

Didn't you say the above?

Well, only 34 batsmen played 70 innings or more in that decade. 7 out of 34 of those batsman averaging 40 or more is that decade is hardly anyone?

Once again, what did you say? That 9 out of 100 is equal to hardly anyone?

So what exactly is 7 out of 34?

I’m not reading all that. You’re too repetitive. This is not bud bud land. What point are you trying to prove?

 

[Hitman]

I’m not reading all that. You’re too repetitive. This is not bud bud land. What point are you trying to prove?

Why don't you simply confess that you have no replies? Just read my post, and you'll be able to realize that you made a false claim that hardly anyone in the 80's averaged in the 40's. You made that false claim to big up your beloved hero Miandad.

 

[TheSultan]

Why don't you simply confess that you have no replies? Just read my post, and you'll be able to realize that you made a false claim that hardly anyone in the 80's averaged in the 40's. You made that false claim to big up your beloved hero Miandad.

No, it’s still over 100. Some batsmen were just simply not good enough or fit enough to to play 70 matches.

So the point is the same.


And the main point is that eras are different. Averages in ODI cricket have gone up over the years. Simple point but you had to act all girlie about it.

 

[Hitman]

No, it’s still over 100. Some batsmen were just simply not good enough or fit enough to to play 70 matches.

So the point is the same.


And the main point is that eras are different. Averages in ODI cricket have gone up over the years. Simple point but you had to act all girlie about it.

Absolutely not. Averages and strike rates remained in the same range till the 90's. It increased a little in the 2000's. It was after the introduction of the 2 new ball rule that everything changed.

 

[TheSultan]

Absolutely not. Averages and strike rates remained in the same range till the 90's. It increased a little in the 2000's. It was after the introduction of the 2 new ball rule that everything changed.

So the point is the same

 

[mominsaigol]

Absolutely not. Averages and strike rates remained in the same range till the 90's. It increased a little in the 2000's. It was after the introduction of the 2 new ball rule that everything changed.

The 2 new ball rule was stupid. Never should have been introduced.

Every old legend including Sachin hates it.

Odi and t20 are now exactly the same with odi just being an extended version.

 

[mominsaigol]

Neither Ijaz nor Babar are the best batters of their era.

Ijaz wasn't even top 20 batters in his era and neither is Babar top 20 batters in his era.

But Ijaz > Babar.

 

[Hitman]

So the point is the same

No, it's not. First you made a false claim that barely anyone averaged 40 or more in the 80's. When proven wrong, you claimed that a lot of those batsman barely played a few matches. When shown how many batsman having played 40 matches or more averaged above 40, you increased the criteria of the number of matches to 70 and claimed how just 5 of those batsman averaged over 40, when in fact 7 did.

What you failed to realize is that only 34 players played 70 innings or more in that decade, and 7 out of those 34 batsman averaged 40 or more.

Hence, your statement that barely anyone averaged 40 or more in the 80's using your own criteria of matches played by those players is wrong.​

 

[Hitman]

The 2 new ball rule was stupid. Never should have been introduced.

Every old legend including Sachin hates it.

Odi and t20 are now exactly the same with odi just being an extended version.

The garbage started from around 2004/05 when flat pitches were being prepared all over the world in ODI cricket to ensure bigger scores. Then they removed the 15 over fielding restrictions and introduced powerplays. Then free hit off no-balls.

And the final nail in the coffin was the 2 new ball rule.

 

[Hitman]

Neither Ijaz nor Babar are the best batters of their era.

Ijaz wasn't even top 20 batters in his era and neither is Babar top 20 batters in his era.

But Ijaz > Babar.

Ijaz, for whatever he was worth, was pretty good-ish against Australia in Tests. I'll have to give him that much. But yes, a very mediocre batsman overall.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

How can younis be there, He was a pathetic white-ball player. He was an atg in red-ball only.

In my opinion you can't be considered a great unless you excel in Test cricket.

So a player who is excellent at test but poor in LOI can be considered a great batsman overall.

But a player who is poor in test but great in LOI in my eyes can't be considered a great, he is a LOI great but overall he is good.

Yes I know this is highly subjective and skewed in favour of test cricket.

As the formats become more distinct, these criteria may change in the future.

 

[TheSultan]

No, it's not. First you made a false claim that barely anyone averaged 40 or more in the 80's. When proven wrong, you claimed that a lot of those batsman barely played a few matches. When shown how many batsman having played 40 matches or more averaged above 40, you increased the criteria of the number of matches to 70 and claimed how just 5 of those batsman averaged over 40, when in fact 7 did.

What you failed to realize is that only 34 players played 70 innings or more in that decade, and 7 out of those 34 batsman averaged 40 or more.

Hence, your statement that barely anyone averaged 40 or more in the 80's using your own criteria of matches played by those players is wrong.​

Why didn’t they play 70 innings? They weren’t good enough. I don’t nerd over stats, you may do and well done.


Point is the same. Batting averages in ODIs have increased over time. That’s not some earth shattering news. That’s not even anything to argue about. Hardly anyone averaged late 40s, 50s in ODIs, some of them do now.

It’s no bloody secret!

 

[mominsaigol]

How can younis be there, He was a pathetic white-ball player. He was an atg in red-ball only.

Yk is a test atg

 

[BouncerGuy]

Yk is a test atg

Yes..only tests so based on all-format team, he cannot be top 3

 

[mominsaigol]

Yes..only tests so based on all-format team, he cannot be top 3

He isn't bad in odi's. People haven't seen him play in the early 2000's. But he had no business playing in odi that long