Bouncer said:Mohammad Sami.
Amen to this, too.Sudeep said:I wouldn't say Afridi is inconsistent.
One can be inconsistent if he does well only in patches, and is mediocre rest of the time. Afridi's no good all the time.
Rather, he's consistently poor.
And I'm talking purely in the context of batting... I quite like his bowling though.
True, although us NZ supporters remember all too well his spell of 5 wickets for 1 run in one of the ODIs in Pakistan, and he also did something similar (but not quite as dramatic) in the 2nd innings of the Hamilton test last summer.Richard said:
Sami is one of the most consistently poor bowlers I've seen in recent years.
Test-average of 46.
How can Agarkar be more inconsistent than Chaminda?Waughney said:Has to be Ajit Agarkar.
"Honourable" mentions:
Vaas
Lee
Sehwag
Vaas consistently churns out good figures, often he also has to bowl in conditions which favour the spinners so sometimes it is easy for him to miss out. Agarkar produces enough good and bad performances to be classed as inconsistent (unlike Afridi) In recent times he has been very inconsistent (i.e. 6/46 V Australia then poor figures, 50 in VB series final and then no good scores)Richard said:How can Agarkar be more inconsistent than Chaminda?
He bowls searing spells occasionally, very poorly very often; Chaminda it's even more pronounced and just about half-and-half.
He has proven himself able to bowl in all conditions but never the less, it's bloody hard to do that on a consistent basis. No-one is denying that he is inconsistent, I guess I'll say he's just behind Agarkar, if not even.Richard said:Thing about Chaminda is we've seen time and again that he's more than capable of bowling brilliantly in all conditions.
In ODIs I'll grant you that he's more consistent than in Test-matches, but still if you took away the matches against substandard ODI sides (minnows, Kenya, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe-post-WC2003) I reckon good:bad would be about 50:50.