Shahid Afridi - The bowler

[Richard]

He does play like that, I've watched him both in Tests and domestic-First-Class cricket. Afridi is not capable of changing his ways, he's not a good enough batsman to do that.

 

[Richard]

Afridi is better in batting while Flintoff better in bowling. So ya in the end, they're about on par with each other, just that Flintoff is overrated.

Afridi is hopelessly overrated by anyone who thinks he's remotely close to Flintoff as bowler or as good as as batsman. And this is remembering Flintoff isn't that good a batsman.

 

[Goughy]

One day cricket probably suits his bowling a bit more, because players need to come at him. At his pace, it can be very hard to do, and he is often very hard to hit straight. Think back to Symonds' innings vs Pakistan in the 2003 WC, and all his runs off Afridi came either through cover or backward point. In Tests, batsmen can sweat on him a bit more without the pressure to score.

Glad I read this thread fully before posting as it saved me from writing exactly the same as above.

Afridi translates well to OD cricket as he is difficult to get after and is hard for the batsman to dominate due to him coming onto the bat quickly, skidding on and having good change of pace.

Those skills dont translate well to Test cricket where you have to work a batsman out or do something special with the ball. I dont think he finds it easy to get good players out when they dont have to look to score quickly.

Very useful OD bowler, not much more than a good fill in bowler at Test level.

 

[Manee]

Presumably, his skills would translate to Test cricket if he has very good, tight bowlers to support him. Obviously though, this is not the case.

 

[haroon510]

i have said it before and i will say it again afridi can be a good option as a specialist test bowler in place of Kaneria.. he is a better bowler than Kaneria and he should be pick for all three type of cricket matches as a bowler who can bat.

 

[Anil]

he is a pretty handy bowler at one day level, but the type who wouldn't make too much of an impact at test level...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Afridi's Test stats are VERY misleading.

His 50+ scores:

141 v India on a sporting pitch Chennai. No team passed 300 and he scored 141 of 286 all out in the 3rd innings of the match. Good innings, it appears.

84 v Sri Lanka - 10 batsmen passed 50 in this game, and 4 of them passed 100. Scored against an attack of Wickramasinghe, Sanjeewa Silva, Hathurusingha, Bandaratilleke and Kalpage. You can look up these bowlers stats, but I'll save you the trouble - aside from Bandaratilleke, no one in the attack averaged less than 40, and Silva and Kalpage averaged over 50 in Tests.

74 v Sri Lanka on a more sporting pitch and a better attack (with Vaas and Murali). Decent knock.

52 v England - deadset pancake surface at Lahore. Decent attack, but it was a flat enough pitch for England to score 480-8 declared over almost 200 overs.

107 v West Indies - the might of West Indies on a flat Sharjah pitch. Don't be deceived by the West Indies scores in this match - it was down to poor batting. The pitch was flat.

70 v Sri Lanka on another pretty flat pitch, but against Vaas and Murali, and the reasonable Nuwan Zoysa.

59 v India - a flashy knock in the chase of a huge total. Was a pretty good pitch throughout the match though. Crucially, he gave away his hand in the penultimate over of day 4.

58 v India - flat pitch.

122 v West Indies - flat pitch against Daren Powell, a long-gone Reon King, Corey Collymore and Chris Gayle. Only one bowler approaching world class there.

60 v India - weak bowling attack and a pitch that (IIRC) flattened out after early life.

92 v England - flat pitch. 4 centurions and 5 other half-centurions in the match.

103 v India - perhaps the flattest pitch in history. 1089 runs, 8 wickets between 2 teams.

156 v India - flat pitch. 6 centuries and 5 fifties among the first 28 wickets to fall in the match.

All in all it's pretty clear that Afridi knows how to cash in on flat pitches, mostly on the subcontinent, and mostly against India. It's also interesting to note (though not stated here) how often he fails in his other innings of a match that he scores big in. Still not convinced?

Afridi has failed to pass 20 in 24 of his 46 innings. That's more than half the time. That said, by the same measure, Flintoff's "failure percentage" is greater. Still, it doesn't take a genius to see that Flintoff has a better temperament at the crease than Afridi.

Granted, none of this has any bearing on his bowling ability, but it's even more obvious that Flintoff is the vastly superior bowler.

 

[GotSpin]

It's a shame about his obvious lack of temperament because i still highly rate Afridi with both bat and ball.

 

[Richard]

Afridi's Test stats are VERY misleading.

His 50+ scores:

141 v India on a sporting pitch Chennai. No team passed 300 and he scored 141 of 286 all out in the 3rd innings of the match. Good innings, it appears.

84 v Sri Lanka - 10 batsmen passed 50 in this game, and 4 of them passed 100. Scored against an attack of Wickramasinghe, Sanjeewa Silva, Hathurusingha, Bandaratilleke and Kalpage. You can look up these bowlers stats, but I'll save you the trouble - aside from Bandaratilleke, no one in the attack averaged less than 40, and Silva and Kalpage averaged over 50 in Tests.

74 v Sri Lanka on a more sporting pitch and a better attack (with Vaas and Murali). Decent knock.

52 v England - deadset pancake surface at Lahore. Decent attack, but it was a flat enough pitch for England to score 480-8 declared over almost 200 overs.

107 v West Indies - the might of West Indies on a flat Sharjah pitch. Don't be deceived by the West Indies scores in this match - it was down to poor batting. The pitch was flat.

70 v Sri Lanka on another pretty flat pitch, but against Vaas and Murali, and the reasonable Nuwan Zoysa.

59 v India - a flashy knock in the chase of a huge total. Was a pretty good pitch throughout the match though. Crucially, he gave away his hand in the penultimate over of day 4.

58 v India - flat pitch.

122 v West Indies - flat pitch against Daren Powell, a long-gone Reon King, Corey Collymore and Chris Gayle. Only one bowler approaching world class there.

60 v India - weak bowling attack and a pitch that (IIRC) flattened out after early life.

92 v England - flat pitch. 4 centurions and 5 other half-centurions in the match.

103 v India - perhaps the flattest pitch in history. 1089 runs, 8 wickets between 2 teams.

156 v India - flat pitch. 6 centuries and 5 fifties among the first 28 wickets to fall in the match.

All in all it's pretty clear that Afridi knows how to cash in on flat pitches, mostly on the subcontinent, and mostly against India. It's also interesting to note (though not stated here) how often he fails in his other innings of a match that he scores big in. Still not convinced?

Afridi has failed to pass 20 in 24 of his 46 innings. That's more than half the time. That said, by the same measure, Flintoff's "failure percentage" is greater. Still, it doesn't take a genius to see that Flintoff has a better temperament at the crease than Afridi.

Granted, none of this has any bearing on his bowling ability, but it's even more obvious that Flintoff is the vastly superior bowler.

One small addition in the 92 against England is that he was dropped by Vaughan on 30-odd (IIRR), one of the easiest catches you'll ever see put down.

 

[Goughy]

One small addition in the 92 against England is that he was dropped by Vaughan on 30-odd (IIRR), one of the easiest catches you'll ever see put down.

No such thing as an easy catch for Vaughan

 

[Richard]

Don't remind me. Got sick of him dropping sitters in about 2001/02.

 

[Arjun]

Once again, we find analysis of individual figures. Not a mention of how it affects the team. While Afridi's average is laughable for a Test batsman, we still find some Test batsmen who average less than 40 and don't bowl at all (or even keep) in international teams.

Moreover, his strike power (especially down the order) is very useful for a batting team with two steady scorers in Yousuf and Younis ahead of him. Those two can build partnerships, and then Afridi can land a knockout punch on the bowling side.

Even as a fill-in bowler, he is quite useful. When the frontline bowlers are a little tired, he can back up for them so that they can recharge and attack better- as against bowling attacks of West Indies, Sri Lanka and especially India who are often (in India's case, always) under-manned. Yet, he's often picked up two wickets or more, and with his style of bowling, he can get extra wickets. He's not world-class as batsman or bowler, but as a combined package, he'd walk into most international teams, especially subcontinental.

 

[Anil]

it's not easy to compare a pace bowler with a spinner but as overrated as flintoff is, he has still been far better than afridi in the bowling as well as all-rounder categories...

 

[GIMH]

Flintoff isn't overrated as a bowler IMO

 

[Richard]

No, but he was, hopelessly, before 2003/04. Maybe even before 2005.

 

[Anil]

Flintoff isn't overrated as a bowler IMO

he is if people actually consider him comparable to botham...he is the first decent all-rounder england has produced after botham but to compare them at this point of their careers is nothing short of ludicrous and i have seen several attempt it...

 

[Richard]

TBF, not recently. All the comparisons came either in plain silly early-career stuff (and there's at least 10 people who've been called "The Next Botham" in that respect, certainly not restricted to Flintoff) or in heat-of-the-moment stuff post-2005.

Now we can offer a proper assessment, I doubt there's anyone who knows a thing about the game who'd honestly say Flintoff was on the same plane.

 

[deeps]

One small addition in the 92 against England is that he was dropped by Vaughan on 30-odd (IIRR), one of the easiest catches you'll ever see put down.

right, i suppose flintoff was never dropped in any of his 50's or 100's

and flintoff never batted on a flat track.

let's face it, most tracks in international cricket are flat tracks these days, and u can't blame the batsman for that. He has played half the matches of Flintoff, and has the same number of 100s.

 

[deeps]

If Afridi's career had been uninterrupted (ie, if his failures had been less stupid-looking and humiliating for his team) his batting-average would be far lower, I don't hesitate to say that. There is no way a batsman as useless as Afridi would average 37 (or whatever it is) in Test cricket without circumstances conspiring in his favour. Late-20s at best.

As I say - Flintoff is no particularly great shakes as a batsman, but he does at least have some semblence of sense. Even back in 1998 or 2000, when he shouldn't have been anywhere near the Test side, he was better than Afridi has been for most of his career.

As I've said many times - Afridi rarely seems particularly bothered about making runs. He generally seems more concerned about playing as many shots as he can, whatever the reason may be for that.

Well, just because it doesn't SEEM like he's bothered about making runs, he IS making runs, hence his average. The stats do not lie, he has played enough matches, and made enough runs for there to be enough information. We're not talking about someone who has played 2 games and has a high average. he has played 26, and made over 1000 runs. That's plenty of matches and runs for his 'true batting ability' to come through.

In reality, people keep remembering HOW he bats, and significantly, the ways he gets out. Sure, he isn't the most reliable batsman in the world, and if i wanted someone to bat a whole day, i'd pick Flintoff before Afridi, every time. But in terms of run scoring, it appears Afridi has it over Flintoff.

People sit here and analyze afridi's knocks, say it was a flat track, weak attack etc. etc.

They fail to realise, Flintoff has batted on flat tracks as well, and has faced weak attacks, and has probably capitilized as well. I don't know, but i'm sure some portion of his runs was in the above situation. You cannot discount them. Afridi has made runs against good attacks on good pitches as well.

I'm not saying Afridi is as good a bowler as Flintoff, though the stats show they are similar. But surely, if the stats show they are that close, then it's a bit weird to see one rated as one of the best bowlers in the world, and one rated so far from that.

Admittedly, Flintoff's bowling average is significantly lower over the past few years, which probably shows why he is rated higher. I still believe though that Afridi's bowling is good enough for international level. He won't make the team as a bowler alone, but with a test batting average of 37 at a strike rate of 85 odd, he definately should make the team every time.

 

[deeps]

Yet, he's often picked up two wickets or more, and with his style of bowling, he can get extra wickets.

Exactly. That is the key point. He is not just a bowler who will hold up an end. He is a wicket taking bowler. And he doesn't only take the wickets of tail enders, he takes key wickets at important times.