• 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.

Shahid Afridi - The bowler

deeps

International 12th Man
Most people know, that he was initially brought into the team back in 1997 as a spin bowler. This all got lost in the hype of his super fast 100 and his amazing, albeit erratic batting abilities.

I think Afridi has gone back to concentrating on his bowling, and he has been a VERY VERY effective bowler for Pakistan over the past couple of years. In the twenty twenty world cup, Afridi was the leading wicket taker.

Currently playing in the IPL, he has done extremely well, picking up crucial wickets whilst keeping his economy in the 6-8 RPO range, whcih is very good.

I really rate him as a bowler, but it seems to go un noticed. I think his batting failures are over-shadowing his ability with the ball.

He recently sneaked into the top 10 for ODI bowlers, yet gets no recognition on these boards or elsewhere as a world class spinner. Why is this the case?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
He recently sneaked into the top 10 for ODI bowlers, yet gets no recognition on these boards or elsewhere as a world class spinner. Why is this the case?
Because he isn't one. I$C$C rankings mean little to most people on these boards, because they're nothing more than form-guides, and not neccessarily terribly reliable ones at that, because they go purely off absolute figures without taking account of how those figures were achieved.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I don't know if he is a world class spinner, but he is certainly a very good limited overs bowler. I have been pretty impressed with his bowling lately, which I think has improved quite a bit, though probably it was always a little bit underrated.

One of the major reasons people (like me!) don't rate him high is because most people care chiefly about Test matches and hold performances in that format as the benchmark. He has not accomplished a great deal in the Test arena yet, so most people don't really look at him seriously.

To be honest, I fall into that category as well. I think he is a very good ODI/T20 bowler, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't much rate the format. It's a case of wake me up when he starts running through a lineup in a Test match type of situation.
 

Woodster

International Captain
Yes a decent ODI bowler, but is not good enough to consistently trouble any Test sides. Good economy generally, bowls at a pace for a spinner that batsmen generally find difficult to line up and dominate with good variations. Seems to lack the true quality to succeed at Test cricket, lack of patience and genuine wicket taking threat.
 

gunner

U19 Cricketer
he could have succeeded in test matches too but was never given a consistent run
a couple of failures in the english series and he was thrown out of the test arena.

Its high time he was brought back into the test scene as the main all rounder
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
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.
 
he could have succeeded in test matches too but was never given a consistent run
a couple of failures in the english series and he was thrown out of the test arena.

Its high time he was brought back into the test scene as the main all rounder
Its Afridi who has never been serious in playing tests and at the start of every crucial series becomes "unfit" or "unavailable".Afridi,despite being a worst batsman & bowler,has what is described as " player's power" and its not possible to keep out of the test squad for longer period if he's willing to play & do well.TBH,he doesn't have the balls to be a good test batsman or bowler(by good I mean having batting averge of 40+ or bowling average of less than 30).
 

deeps

International 12th Man
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.
Absolutely ridiciluos to say the least.

Shahid Afridi:
Batting
Matches: 26
Innings: 46
NO: 1
Runs: 1683
HS: 156
Ave: 37.40
SR: 86.13
100s: 5
50's: 8

Bowling
Wickets: 47
Ave: 34.89
SR: 65.7
Econ: 3.18



Compared to the supposedly great all rounder Andrew Flintoff

Batting
Matches: 67
Innings: 110
NO: 6
Runs: 3381
HS: 167
Ave: 32.5
SR: 64.17
100s: 5
50's: 24

Bowling
Wickets: 197
Ave: 32.02
SR: 63.7
Econ: 3.01



Looking at these figures, it shows that Afridi is the better batsman. Flintoff is marginally the better bowler, but there isn't much between them in bowling.

So why is one regarded so good, and the other regarded a poor test match player (or bowler for that matter)


Afridi has played less than half the tests that Flintoff has, but they have the same number of 100's.


I think Afridi is unfairly biased against, due to his style of play. People have pigeonholed him as an ODI specialist, and whilst they give him chances once in a while in Tests, he is quickly dropped after failing.
 

shortpitched713

International Regular
I think Afridi is unfairly biased against, due to his style of play. People have pigeonholed him as an ODI specialist, and whilst they give him chances once in a while in Tests, he is quickly dropped after failing.
AWTA, though the comparison with Flintoff is a bit rough as Flintoff has improved miles from his early performance, especially with his bowling.
 

deeps

International 12th Man
AWTA, though the comparison with Flintoff is a bit rough as Flintoff has improved miles from his early performance, especially with his bowling.
You are right. Below stats are from over the past 4 years

However Afridi's batting average improves too, whilst his bowling is slightly worse (average drop by about 3 rpw)



Afridi:

batting avg: 43
bowling 37.35


Flintoff:
batting: 37.20
bowling 27.17
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Absolutely ridiciluos to say the least.

Shahid Afridi:
Batting
Matches: 26
Innings: 46
NO: 1
Runs: 1683
HS: 156
Ave: 37.40
SR: 86.13
100s: 5
50's: 8

Bowling
Wickets: 47
Ave: 34.89
SR: 65.7
Econ: 3.18



Compared to the supposedly great all rounder Andrew Flintoff

Batting
Matches: 67
Innings: 110
NO: 6
Runs: 3381
HS: 167
Ave: 32.5
SR: 64.17
100s: 5
50's: 24

Bowling
Wickets: 197
Ave: 32.02
SR: 63.7
Econ: 3.01



Looking at these figures, it shows that Afridi is the better batsman. Flintoff is marginally the better bowler, but there isn't much between them in bowling.

So why is one regarded so good, and the other regarded a poor test match player (or bowler for that matter)


Afridi has played less than half the tests that Flintoff has, but they have the same number of 100's.


I think Afridi is unfairly biased against, due to his style of play. People have pigeonholed him as an ODI specialist, and whilst they give him chances once in a while in Tests, he is quickly dropped after failing.
:laugh: Despite the fact Afridi has done worse in ODIs, by a long way, than he has in Tests, people have pidgeon-holed him as a ODI specialist.

There's a good reason why Afridi has played so few Tests, it's because when he's bad he's an embarrassment and takes less time to get dropped than almost anyone would. So his good performances make more of an impact on his average.

The notion that Afridi is even remotely close to being as good as Flintoff as a Test bowler is so utterly laughable that it beggars belief anyone would suggest it TBH. And poor batsman though Flintoff has often been, he's comfortably better than Afridi there too.

Classic example of looking at figures without taking them in context.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You are right. Below stats are from over the past 4 years

However Afridi's batting average improves too, whilst his bowling is slightly worse (average drop by about 3 rpw)



Afridi:

batting avg: 43
bowling 37.35


Flintoff:
batting: 37.20
bowling 27.17
Seriously shortsighted. You might want to take a look at the context and conditions in which Afridi has scored his Test runs, as well as actually look at Andrew Flintoff (fit) bowling.
 

shortpitched713

International Regular
The notion that Afridi is even remotely close to being as good as Flintoff as a Test bowler is so utterly laughable that it beggars belief anyone would suggest it TBH. And poor batsman though Flintoff has often been, he's comfortably better than Afridi there too.

Classic example of looking at figures without taking them in context.
Agree about the bowling, but I don't see what Flintoff has done with the bat though, that would make one assume that hes automatically a better Test batsman than Afridi. Afridi averages better than him in either context, and its not like hes played 26 matches all on flat tracks.

The role that Afridi would be selected in for Tests would be as a batsman who can bowl, quite the opposite of the role he plays in ODIs, due to the dearth of good Test middle order options right now for Pakistan. And I dare say his record justifies a selection into such a role.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Agree about the bowling, but I don't see what Flintoff has done with the bat though, that would make one assume that hes automatically a better Test batsman than Afridi. Afridi averages better than him in either context, and its not like hes played 26 matches all on flat tracks.
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.
 

Unattainableguy

State 12th Man
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. The way Kaneria has been so poor in tests for so long now, I hope he gets replaced by someone else or Afridi(who I think can do better with ball + his batting).
 

Unattainableguy

State 12th Man
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.
I think you've only watched his ODI innings. In Tests, he doesn't play like that, hence his higher average.
 

Top