Shahid Afridi - The bowler

[deeps]

We also have a guy like Daniel Vettori, who everyone considers a pretty good bowler, and a guy who can hold the bat a bit as well.

TESTS
Matches: 80
Batting Average: 27.38
SR: 57.25
100s: 2
50's: 16
Bowling Average:
34.80
Econ: 2.6
SR: 78.2

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

Afridi might be a bit more expensive, but he has a better SR. Again, similar averages with the ball, and Afridi wins with the bat.

Yet if we ask people who they would want in a test match, most would pick Vettori over Afridi.

 

[deeps]

How about this comparison:

Harbhajan Singh - considered to be one of the worlds best spinners at test level.

Matches: 66
Batting average: 15.67
SR: 64.92
100s: 0
50's: 4
Bowling average: 31.03
Econ: 2.83
SR: 65.6

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

Is there much between them in terms of bowling? Again, Harbhajan is slightly less expensive, very similar strike rates and slightly better average for Harbhajan. Again, Afridi's batting absolutely smashes Harbhajan.


So the question begs to be asked. Is Afridi's spot in the team dictated by his BATTING performances, when perhaps his bowling performances should be given more consideration. Of course, it should be considered as a package, but as a BOWLING all rounder. I think at the moment, he is considered a BATTING all rounder, which is why he is seldom picked for the test team.

 

[deeps]

And the knock out punch. His competition. Mr Danish Kaneria:

Matches: 51
Batting Average: 6.84
SR: 47.70
100s: 0
50s: 0

Bowling Average: 33.90
Econ: 2.98
SR: 68.1

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

Again, very similar in all facets, and again, Afridi's batting blows his opponent out of the water.

 

[Goughy]

Again, very similar in all facets, and again, Afridi's batting blows his opponent out of the water.

Until you look at the fact that Afridi averages well under 2 wickets per Test.

That isnt production on any level.

Its not even like Kallis who was a front line bowler who reduced his workload to concentrate on being one of the elite batsmen in the world but was very good when used often.

The record of Afridi suggests nothing more than a part-time bowler at Test level. It certainly isnt comparable to guys that have heavy workloads and responsibilities and take 3-4 wickets a Test.

 

[slowfinger]

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.

What? So your saying all those figures and stuff aren't good?

 

[slowfinger]

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...

Yes he is

 

[Flem274*]

To suggest Afridi is better than Vettori or Singh is what happens when you take averages as gospel.

Seriously, both are infinitely superior to Afridi.

 

[DaRick]

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.

Reading an interview with him, his refusal to change seems to be more pathological than voluntary. He often tells himself, apparently, to play himself in, but his instincts overpower his thought processes and he ends up smashing the ball as much as he can, anyway.

I do like watching him bowl (his quicker ball is awesome, for instance), but he has the same problem that Brad Hogg has - temperament. For all of his variation, I doubt that he'll ever be a frontline Test-class spinner - just someone who can rock up, break partnerships and take a few wickets. He is certainly a good ODI bowler - his dodgy average comes from his early games, where he was seemingly unable to pick up many wickets.

To suggest Afridi is better than Vettori or Singh is what happens when you take averages as gospel.

Seriously, both are infinitely superior to Afridi.

Have you even checked Afridi's average? Or were you referring to Afridi as a batsman? Seriously though, to suggest that Afridi is better than either Daniel Vettori or Harbhajan Singh is a clear indication of an Afridi fanboy; no more, no less.

 

[deeps]

Until you look at the fact that Afridi averages well under 2 wickets per Test.

That isnt production on any level.

Its not even like Kallis who was a front line bowler who reduced his workload to concentrate on being one of the elite batsmen in the world but was very good when used often.

The record of Afridi suggests nothing more than a part-time bowler at Test level. It certainly isnt comparable to guys that have heavy workloads and responsibilities and take 3-4 wickets a Test.

Their strike rates are comparible too, as well as economy. He doesn't bowl as many overs as Kaneria, Vetorri etc. but his stats suggest if he did, he would be just as good.

I know it's not as clear cut as that though

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Afridi might be a bit more expensive, but he has a better SR. Again, similar averages with the ball, and Afridi wins with the bat.

Yet if we ask people who they would want in a test match, most would pick Vettori over Afridi.

I love the way that you continue to ignore the inflation of Afridi's Test average. Having seen a lot of both batsmen in both the long and short form of the game, I would confidently pick Vettori ahead of Afridi as an allrounder. Far more likely to score runs. Neither is a particularly potent bowler, mind.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Their strike rates are comparible too, as well as economy. He doesn't bowl as many overs as Kaneria, Vetorri etc. but his stats suggest if he did, he would be just as good.

I know it's not as clear cut as that though

That's not how cricket works, unfortunately. Part-time bowlers are almost always consider as such for a reason. And that reason tends to be because they can't cut it in a specialist role. The specialist bowlers, particularly spinners, are asked to bowl in most unhelpful of conditions, sometimes for hours on end. Further to that, they are asked to bowl at front-line batsmen more often than part-timers are.

Part-time bowlers operate less often and are therefore less likely to suffer the damage that front-liners do. They're typically used to pick up a loose wicket or two (golden arm) or to tie up an end. They're not used for extended spells because they typically aren't capable of sustaining any sort of pressure over that time. You have to consider the different ways in which bowlers are used and why they're used that way.

Then again, Simon Katich's bowling record suggests that he would just as good as Afridi if he bowled as often. Heck, Michael Clarke's record suggests that he would smoke Shane Warne if he bowled as often.

 

[Richard]

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

On just 2 occasions has Flintoff ever had let-offs and gone on to make notable scores. Funnily enough, on both these occasions multiple let-offs (at least 3 in both innings) happened. These are the games at the ARG 2004 and Wankhede Stadium (second-innings) 2005/06.

and flintoff never batted on a flat track.

The proportion of flat to seam\spin-friendly for Flintoff is far lower than for Afridi.

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.

And the above explains this.

 

[Richard]

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.

It's not, though. Afridi has been dropped too many times, and too quickly, for any career average to be an accurate reflection. Had he played every game between his debut and now, his average would, I have no hesitation in saying, be about 28-29 - at best.

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.

Has he? On no more than a tiny number of occasions. No more, in fact, than Flintoff - Flintoff in fact has had 3 full series' of impressive run-getting against good bowling-attacks - South Africa in 2003, Australia in 2005 and India in 2005/06. Afridi has had no more than the odd innings here and there.

Flintoff has indeed batted on flat wickets against weak attacks - about as much as Afridi has, really. But for Afridi he's played far fewer innings, so the easy-runs innings' make-up a larger proportion of his career.

 

[Richard]

Reading an interview with him, his refusal to change seems to be more pathological than voluntary. He often tells himself, apparently, to play himself in, but his instincts overpower his thought processes and he ends up smashing the ball as much as he can, anyway.

Yeah, absolutely. For some batsmen, instinct is too powerful to be overridden. I'm not in the least surprised this is the case with Afridi TBH.

 

[Richard]

What? So your saying all those figures and stuff aren't good?

I$C$C ranking systems aren't remotely important to me, no.

 

[Jono]

Deeps you've been Afridi's biggest supporter for ages, but surely now you realise he just hasn't lived up to his potential, and particularly in tests, there are far better options.

I've always said he's a very good ODI bowler, and someone you'd want in the team, but its time to accept he'll never be as great as he could have been, if he had anything inside that head.

 

[Migara]

And the knock out punch. His competition. Mr Danish Kaneria:

Matches: 51
Batting Average: 6.84
SR: 47.70
100s: 0
50s: 0

Bowling Average: 33.90
Econ: 2.98
SR: 68.1

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

Again, very similar in all facets, and again, Afridi's batting blows his opponent out of the water.

And here is the knockout punch to say that stats don't tell the whole story. Let's compare Sanath Jayasuriya and Shahid Afridi as bowlers.

Sanath Jayasuriya
Tests: 98 wickets @ 34.3, ER = 2.5, SR = 84
ODIs: 308 wickets @ 36.4, ER = 4.8, SR = 46

Shahid Afridi
Tests: 47 wickers @ 34.9. ER = 3.2, SR = 66
ODIs: 229 wickets @ 35.0, ER = 4.6, SR = 45

Now seeing how close these two are in both versions of the game we can say Jayasuriya is a good as bowler as Afridi. B ut it's only true in ODI setup. In test level Jayasuriya is nothing more than a part timer.

 

[Arjun]

And here is the knockout punch to say that stats don't tell the whole story. Let's compare Sanath Jayasuriya and Shahid Afridi as bowlers.

Sanath Jayasuriya
Tests: 98 wickets @ 34.3, ER = 2.5, SR = 84
ODIs: 308 wickets @ 36.4, ER = 4.8, SR = 46

Shahid Afridi
Tests: 47 wickers @ 34.9. ER = 3.2, SR = 66
ODIs: 229 wickets @ 35.0, ER = 4.6, SR = 45

Now seeing how close these two are in both versions of the game we can say Jayasuriya is a good as bowler as Afridi. B ut it's only true in ODI setup. In test level Jayasuriya is nothing more than a part timer.

Yet, we find that when Shahid Afridi plays, there are only three or four frontline bowlers, and the other options are the likes of Malik, Razzaq and (at times) Hafeez or Mahmood- and sometimes, he's only one of five bowlers. But there have been countless matches when we've seen five specialist bowlers (we've seen Vaas-Dilhara-Malinga-Muralitharan-Maharoof a few times) despite having Sanath as a genuine bowling option. That shows who's a more regular bowler.

 

[Migara]

Now seeing how close these two are in both versions of the game we can say Jayasuriya is a good as bowler as Afridi. But it's only true in ODI setup. In test level Jayasuriya is nothing more than a part timer.

Please read the post well.

In test matches SL rarely goes with fve bowlers. Usually it was 2/3 seamers with 1/2 spinners, plus Jayasuriya, Dilshan, Aravinda and few others to do the part time stuff.

 

[Richard]

Deeps you've been Afridi's biggest supporter for ages

SW\BLE (obviously) and haroon, IMO.