Who was the better batter: Abdul Razzaq or Shahid Afridi?

[msb314]

I think a touched a little bit on this in the other thread but wanted to start a new topic on this specifically.

Who was the better batsman: Abdul Razzaq or Shahid Afridi?

As a batsman alone - I think Razzaq was better. Had a better eye and timing for the ball, especially against pace.

Afridi had more centuries and half centuries but he also played many more matches than Razzaq.

It also seems like Razzaq did not panic under pressure and could hit big under any circumstances.

Discuss!

 

[usam wani]

definitely Abdul Razzaq. I remember some of his test innings also where he played beautifully . In fact he was better allrounder than Afridi.

 

[Executioner]

Abdul Razzak all the way. Razzak in his days was a clinical finisher. If he played in this era he would have lethal against any death bowling unit

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Razzaq by miles. Better under pressure in ODIs and he had the capability to save a test match by batting defensively like he did against India. Afridi was a hack.

 

[UN talkz]

Abdul Razzaq........ all the way.
He was one hell of a finisher

 

[msb314]

definitely Abdul Razzaq. I remember some of his test innings also where he played beautifully . In fact he was better allrounder than Afridi.

Abdul Razzak all the way. Razzak in his days was a clinical finisher. If he played in this era he would have lethal against any death bowling unit

Razzaq by miles. Better under pressure in ODIs and he had the capability to save a test match by batting defensively like he did against India. Afridi was a hack.

Abdul Razzaq........ all the way.
He was one hell of a finisher

Seems like we are all in agreement. Razzaq was the better batsman.

 

[Hasan123]

Abdul Razzaq

 

[Rightarmfast]

Never thought a day would come when people would talk about Shahid Afridi's batting!

Only the 90's kids would remember Abdul Razzaq hammering Glen Mcgrath for 5 consecutive 4's... Nuff said!

 

[PakLFC]

Easily Razzaq. Lala was a slogger, hit or miss batsman. Mostly it was a miss.

 

[Mobashir]

Shahid Afridi was more complete, had better technique also.
Especially against the spinners.

But probably 2004 onwards, Abdul Raaaq was a better hitter of fast bowling than Afridi.

 

[DRsohail]

abdul razaq..

 

[hadi123]

Abdul Razzaq. He was more sensible and could play in different situations. He has played some long test innings when the situation has required it.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Razzaq

Has a century in SA vs SA batting at #3.

 

[Suleiman]

Afridi till 2002 was a superior batsman. Better technique, more strokes. After that it was Razzaq because Afridi became a full time slogger with no regard to proper batting.

 

[Buffet]

Afridi was a superior batsman among these two when he was not playing as a slogger.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

When you look back at Afridi's Test Innings from 2005-2006 especially his 156 against India and the 2005 series against england, you could see he used to have proper cricketing strokes back then. Cover drives, cuts, late cuts, straight drive, pulls and hook. He had everything but brain. Afterwards apart from his brief purple patch in late 2009-mid 2010, his batting was nothing but wild slogs. Just makes me sad if he had kept on playing Tests and FC cricket till 2015, his batting record might have been gone to averaging around 27 28, rather than paltry 23. (In 2005-late 2006, his batting avg was 26 if i am not wrong)

Abdul Razzaq although did not have a good defense or the range of shots especially hook shot and cuts, he made it count every time he came out to bat. He was ice cool in chases and earlier on in his career, around 99-2003 he would consistently be batting at no.3 with a lot of notable innings. A Razzaq wins hands down.

 

[khalil1986]

Afridi was a superior batsman among these two when he was not playing as a slogger.

When has he ever not played like a slogger?

 

[ads101]

ODIs, Razzaq clearly. In tests, Afridi, Razzaq never really had any impact there, where for a while Afridi looked like a promising batsmen in that format until he retired from it

 

[thelandofthebravepeople]

Afridi vs spinners
Razzaq vs pacers

Afridi was better spinner

Razzaq was better pace bowler

 

[Justcrazy]

Razzak was more consistent hitter.

 

[Buffet]

When has he ever not played like a slogger?

I have seen him playing cricketing shots in few innings and not going for slogs every over.

 

[PakSarZameen]

Razzaq was a lazy cricketer, poor against spin.
Afridi a reckless cricketer, poor against pace.

But both together made the perfect combo, like yin and yang, one completing the other.

A combined average of 50+ at 100+ strike rate with the bat and 30 with the ball.

Not to forget their X factor.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

New Zealand’s Mark Chapman has recently opened up about admiring Pakistan’s star all-rounders Shahid Afridi and Abdul Razzaq during his childhood:

“Growing up, I certainly have fond memories of watching Shahid Afridi. You can’t look past him. Everyone sort of held their breath when he walked out to bat,”

“Another name is Abdul Razzaq. I really enjoyed watching him, particularly his batting.”

 

[Ab Fan]

Afridi till 2002 was a superior batsman. Better technique, more strokes. After that it was Razzaq because Afridi became a full time slogger with no regard to proper batting.

This. Spot on.

 

[Fanboy375]

Razzaq has better bowling performance than Afridi.Afridi and Razzaq had scored 22 runs/innings but Afridi has higher strike rate.

 

[Fanboy375]

Wasim Ahkram-""I've been saying this for more than 21 years to Afridi. He has to learn"