Worlds Most Dangerous Cricketer (bowler or batsmen)

[SJS]

Considering that Pakistan has considered him only for 19 tests so far, I assume, Afridi is being discussed mainly in the context of one day matches. Yes its true that at 103.3 his scoring rate is phenomenal but when you consider that his average innings lasts just around 20-22 balls, he doesnt seem to be that dangerous since the opposite side is more or less confident that he wilol throw it away.

The other day, after having already hit a big one, and then seeing a fielder placed exactly at the spot, he hit a full toss straight to the fielder on the fence. I am not sure if Woolmer would have been impressed with these 'dangerous' tactics. Cricket is not just a physical game, there is at least a minimal amount of commonsense that is required to play at the top. Afridi has still to demonstrate that he posesses that. If he did, he would surely have been a dangerous player indeed.

At least when he opens or goes at one down he scores some runs but batting at 6,7,8 and 9 he averages under 14. I think Afridi, mighty hitter of the cricket ball that he undoubtedly is, needs to think a bit and he could perhaps be the nightmare for good oppositions consistently as Gilchrist, Sehwag, Jayasuriya etc are.

 

[SJS]

Further, Afridi averages (in ODI's) 36 against Kiwies, nearly 30 against Zimbabwe and 29 against Bangladesh.

However against England he is under 20, against Windies 17 and against Aussues 11.5 !! Clearly he relishes a certain type of bowling.

 

[Craig]

Hmm, comparing the 2 is a bit strange IMO - and I doubt there's an Aussie on here who wouldn't want Flintoff to play for them.

Depending on the balance on the side, if you want to play two spinners and three quicks or play four quicks and one spinner, and unless on spinning wickets, do Australia need four fast bowlers?

 

[Arrow]

Laras innings today against australia A was a reminder that when on song hes untouchable, even by Gilchrist.

 

[GotSpin]

True, but they aren't world class bowlers remember

 

[Arrow]

True, but they aren't world class bowlers remember

Why werent they world class? Lee certainly is and i dont think they are any worse than the pakistani attack Gilchrist thrashed this summer.

 

[marc71178]

with the bat:he holds the record for most sixes........ enough said

So, when Flintoff overtakes him (which won't be long), will you immediately change your mind?

Besides that he holds a record in a form of the game he no longer plays.

 

[marc71178]

Gilchrist is a very good 'keeper

Yes, but the likes of Miller, Sobers, Botham, Imran etc. were more than just very good in both disciplines.

 

[Arrow]

Yes, but the likes of Miller, Sobers, Botham, Imran etc. were more than just very good in both disciplines.

Imran wasnt really a very good batsman. 37 in tests is average.
Id say gilchrist is a better keeper than imran was batsman.

 

[SJS]

Imran wasnt really a very good batsman. 37 in tests is average.

Id say gilchrist is a better keeper than imran was batsman.

Thats very difficult to substantiate.

 

[marc71178]

Imran not a good batsman?

And besides that Imran as a bowler is far better than Gilchrist with the bat.

 

[Swervy]

Imran wasnt really a very good batsman. 37 in tests is average.
Id say gilchrist is a better keeper than imran was batsman.

I think Imrans average was boosted by the fact he came in lower in the order etc..he had an average about 4 runs higher than Bothams..but I would consider Botham to be the better batsman.However, that said, Imran was a better batsman than you are saying there Arrow.He would certainly be in the current pakistan line up on his batting alone.

tecnically, Imran was very good,but he just didnt make the big scores enough

 

[Craig]

How on earth could you compare a bowler to a batsman?

 

[SJS]

Imran wasnt really a very good batsman. 37 in tests is average.
Id say gilchrist is a better keeper than imran was batsman.

Imran averaged 37.7 in tests.

With an average of 37.2, Nasser Hussain played 96 tests for England and as a pure batsman !

If 37.7 is not a good average for an all rounder, I dont know what is ?

 

[GotSpin]

Why werent they world class? Lee certainly is and i dont think they are any worse than the pakistani attack Gilchrist thrashed this summer.

They are not world class because they are yet to make the test team or in Lee's case establish their spot. So your saying someone like Tate is better than Akhtar? Or Nathan Hauritz than Danish

 

[SJS]

Imran wasnt really a very good batsman. 37 in tests is average.Id say gilchrist is a better keeper than imran was batsman.

Was 37.7 not good enough for Imran to have played for Pakistan purely as a batsman ?

Here are some of his contemporaries who averaged less than him and played purely as batsmen.

Mohsin Khan (1978-86) 48 tests
Qasim Omar (83-86) 26 tests
Rameez Raja (84-97) 57 tests
Sadiq Mohammad (70-86) 41 tests.

There have been others since like Ijaz Ahmed 60 tests.

So clearly his average is not to be scoffed at and by no means can he be called, not really a very good batsman

 

[Arrow]

They are not world class because they are yet to make the test team or in Lee's case establish their spot. So your saying someone like Tate is better than Akhtar? Or Nathan Hauritz than Danish

They are both world class because they have played international cricket for australia and lee is currently one of the best one day bowlers in the world, certainly as good as akhtar, and Hauritz has played 8 ODI's with an average of 34 compared to danish's 10 games@ 43.

 

[Arrow]

Imran averaged 37.7 in tests.

With an average of 37.2, Nasser Hussain played 96 tests for England and as a pure batsman !

If 37.7 is not a good average for an all rounder, I dont know what is ?

Its a good average for an allrounder but marc was implying imran was more than very good with the bat which really isnt true. He was solid.

 

[Tony Blade]

Adam Gilchrist for me

 

[SJS]

Adam Gilchrist for me

Day in and day out, it has to be Gilchrist.