How good was Kris Srikanth?

[putrevus]

I would rate Afridi higher than Srikanth . Srikanth was an average opener in tests but he was one of the better odi batsmen in indian team. Sehwag was a genius with bat and he is among top five all best batsmen in sub continent conditions. He is one subcontinent batsman who has dominated home and away atleast in sub continent.

[Gollum]

I would rate Afridi higher than Srikanth . Srikanth was an average opener in tests but he was one of the better odi batsmen in indian team. Sehwag was a genius with bat and he is among top five all best batsmen in sub continent conditions. He is one subcontinent batsman who has dominated home and away atleast in sub continent.

What you smoking bro?

[putrevus]

What you smoking bro?

Why Afrridi was better batsmen than Srikanth and far more talented stroke.maker.

[Marut]

I would rate Afridi higher than Srikanth . Srikanth was an average opener in tests but he was one of the better odi batsmen in indian team. Sehwag was a genius with bat and he is among top five all best batsmen in sub continent conditions. He is one subcontinent batsman who has dominated home and away atleast in sub continent.

Both did not have a good technique. But Cheeka was still an opener and in those days you had no chances surviving as an opener if you were a blind slogger like Afridi. Afridi would not last six balls as a test opener in the 80s. Afridi mostly made his career by bashing weak teams.

[Vijy]

I would rate Afridi higher than Srikanth . Srikanth was an average opener in tests but he was one of the better odi batsmen in indian team. Sehwag was a genius with bat and he is among top five all best batsmen in sub continent conditions. He is one subcontinent batsman who has dominated home and away atleast in sub continent.

Afridi higher than Krish?? :hysterical::hysterical: In ODIs that's clearly not true, and Afridi's admittedly better Test stats came in far easier conditions.

[putrevus]

Both did not have a good technique. But Cheeka was still an opener and in those days you had no chances surviving as an opener if you were a blind slogger like Afridi. Afridi would not last six balls as a test opener in the 80s. Afridi mostly made his career by bashing weak teams.

What in those days what was so special in those days, what greatness has Cheeka ever shown over Afridi. No one is saying Afrfdi was Bradman, but he is better than Cheeka, not many people remember but his 141 was one of better test knock played by a visiting player in 1999. Sachin 138 in the same test is more famous but his 141 was reason why the test was won by Pakistan.

[Vijy]

What in those days what was so special in those days, what greatness has Cheeka ever shown over Afridi. No one is saying Afrfdi was Bradman, but he is better than Cheeka, not many people remember but his 141 was one of better test knock played by a visiting player in 1999. Sachin 138 in the same test is more famous but his 141 was reason why the test was won by Pakistan.

Quality of bowling was a little better, and the pitches and rules also favoured bowlers somewhat more - Afridi played as an opener in the late 90s when many good bowlers were still around, but on their way out.

[Marut]

What in those days what was so special in those days, what greatness has Cheeka ever shown over Afridi. No one is saying Afrfdi was Bradman, but he is better than Cheeka, not many people remember but his 141 was one of better test knock played by a visiting player in 1999. Sachin 138 in the same test is more famous but his 141 was reason why the test was won by Pakistan.

Most of Indian wins in the 80s was either due to Srikkanth's or Kapil's brilliance. Rules were bowler friendly in those days - no field restriction in ODIs, no bouncer rules etc. Batting as an opener was quite challenging in the 80s - and Cheeka did pretty well for that era. He even hit an aggressive test hundred against Wasim and Imran - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63452.html Afridi is known for one or two early knocks. Those knocks hurt Pakistan so badly that they had to put up with his mediocrity for the next 15 years!!

[kosingh]

Quality of bowling was a little better' date=' and the pitches and rules also favoured bowlers somewhat more - Afridi played as an opener in the late 90s when many good bowlers were still around, but on their way out.[/quote'] IMO, quality of bowling has only been mediocre in the last 4-5 years. But otherwise, Afridi has played in a period which has seen some of the very best bowlers in the modern era- Warne, McGrath, Kumble, Murali, Pollock, Donald, Bond, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh etc. I still think Srikanth is the better of the two...but I don't rate Srikanth as highly as some of the previous posters here.

[Vijy]

IMO, quality of bowling has only been mediocre in the last 4-5 years. But otherwise, Afridi has played in a period which has seen some of the very best bowlers in the modern era- Warne, McGrath, Kumble, Murali, Pollock, Donald, Bond, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh etc. I still think Srikanth is the better of the two...but I don't rate Srikanth as highly as some of the previous posters here.

Yes, that's quite true. Afridi was indeed around when some of the greats played... but of this list, likes of Walsh-Ambrose, Donald, etc were done by 2000 (at least in effectiveness). While Srikkanth played against many teams that a good supply of very good pacers coming through. I do believe that Afridi was an underrated Test bat, just as Srikkanth was a pretty good ODI player for his time.