• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Razzaq vs Pathan

Who is the better allrounder?

  • A.Razzaq

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • I.Pathan

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • G.Sobers

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • Total voters
    24

Xuhaib

International Coach
Continuing with the recent theme of comparison threads lets bring another comparison.

Pathan pips out for me in both the departments.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Razzaq at his peak was the better ODI batsman.

He was an annoying test batsman, he'd just sit there and do nothing, as if to say "I'm going to be completely opposite to the way I play in ODIs"

He did save Pakistan in a test vs. India in 2005 mind you.

Razzaq's bowling fell away to ridiculous levels from around 2004 onwards, but he could still get Tendulkar out often which was weird.

If both players are taken at their peak, I'd go Razzaq in ODIs, and Pathan in tests (but that doesn't really mean much).
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
Razzaq at his peak was the better ODI batsman.

He was an annoying test batsman, he'd just sit there and do nothing, as if to say "I'm going to be completely opposite to the way I play in ODIs"

He did save Pakistan in a test vs. India in 2005 mind you.

Razzaq's bowling fell away to ridiculous levels from around 2004 onwards, but he could still get Tendulkar out often which was weird.

If both players are taken at their peak, I'd go Razzaq in ODIs, and Pathan in tests (but that doesn't really mean much).
Yeah it was so annoying it seemed Razzaq only had two gears for his batting: the first gear and then boom! suddenly jumping in to overdrive.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Pathan much the better bowler (so far - we'll see if he "does a Razzaq"), Razzaq eminently the better batsman, but a real waste of talent with the the bat IMO. Could have been a pretty decent Test number-three for my money, but almost never batted there.
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Pathan has the ability to far exceed Razzaq with the bat in both forms of the game and with the ball in Test cricket, but he'll have to alter his bowling style and improve somewhat to exceed Razzaq's ODI bowling.
 

DaRick

State Vice-Captain
Pathan much the better bowler (so far - we'll see if he "does a Razzaq"), Razzaq eminently the better batsman, but a real waste of talent with the the bat IMO. Could have been a pretty decent Test number-three for my money, but almost never batted there.
I think Abdul Razzaq was a waste of talent with both bat and ball, really. Still, on seaming pitches, he could be incisive.

In Tests, Pathan is probably the better bowler (despite his minnow-bashing ways), but Razzaq's equal with the bat (well, they wouldn't be if Razzaq didn't tend to hibernate at the crease).

In ODI's, Razzaq is a far superior batsman and much more economical with the ball, too (despite his average being a touch worse). So I'd go for him.

It's a call which would be based on circumstances, really, so I'm gonna wimp out and go for Sir Garfield Sobers. :p
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
In pomp Razzaq was easily the better bowler, would have made the Pakistani team merely on his ability with the ball.

Pretty tough call regarding batting considering Pathan is a pretty classily batsman but Razzaq given a medium pacer to face at the death was a bloody awesome one day batsman.

Probably go with Razzaq.
 

Googenheim

U19 12th Man
Razzaq was very impressive in the '99 World Cup. He's also played more match saving/winning knocks than Pathan and knocked over Tendulkar many times. I'll go for him at this point in time.
 

Top