The rain had just stopped at Lahore’s Gaddafi Stadium when I bumped into former Pakistan pacer Aaqib Javed at the boundary rope. It was 2018, and I was covering a domestic tournament for my newspaper. Our conversation inevitably drifted to cricket’s dying breed – the genuine all-rounder. “We don’t make them like we used to,” Javed lamented, referencing his former teammate Abdul Razzaq. “These days, everyone wants to be a T20 specialist.”
Four years later, as I watched Hardik Pandya single-handedly dismantle Pakistan in the T20 World Cup with both bat and ball, Javed’s words echoed in my mind. Was he right? Do the all-rounders of yesteryear truly overshadow their modern counterparts?
This week, Shoaib Akhtar – never one to shy away from a controversial opinion – thrust this debate into the spotlight by comparing India’s premier all-rounder Hardik Pandya with Pakistan’s former utility player Abdul Razzaq. His verdict? Razzaq was “ten times better” than Pandya.
The comparison immediately ignited fierce debates across the cricket-obsessed subcontinent, with fans and former players weighing in from both sides of the border. But beyond nationalistic fervor and nostalgic bias, how do these two versatile cricketers truly measure up against each other?
Tale of the Tape: Career Trajectories and Statistics
Abdul Razzaq emerged as a prodigious talent in the late 1990s, making his debut as a teenager in 1996. His career spanned nearly 15 years, encompassing 265 ODIs, 46 Tests, and 32 T20Is for Pakistan. Razzaq amassed 7,419 runs across formats while claiming 389 wickets – numbers that certainly justify his reputation as a genuine all-rounder.
Hardik Pandya’s international journey began in 2016, and despite being eight years into his career, injuries have limited him to 88 ODIs, 11 Tests, and 95 T20Is. His current tally stands at 4,185 runs and 187 wickets across formats. While these numbers might seem modest compared to Razzaq’s career haul, contextualizing their careers becomes essential.
“Statistics only tell half the story,” remarked former India selector Saba Karim when I caught up with him at a domestic match in Mumbai last month. “Pandya has played in an era of specialized cricket where the demands on an all-rounder are fundamentally different. He’s rarely called upon to bowl ten overs in ODIs or long spells in Tests like all-rounders of the previous generation.”
The numbers support Karim’s assessment. In T20Is, where direct comparison is most relevant, Pandya averages 27.3 with the bat at a strike rate of 142.3, compared to Razzaq’s batting average of 17.6 at a strike rate of 121.2. With the ball, Pandya averages 27.3 with an economy of 8.1, while Razzaq averaged 28.3 with an economy of 7.6.
What’s particularly striking is how their roles evolved differently. Razzaq began his career primarily as a bowler who could bat, before gradually transforming into a batting all-rounder. Pandya, conversely, was always viewed as a batting all-rounder whose bowling provided valuable balance.
The Bowling Dimension: Swing vs Speed
Cricket journalist and historian Vijay Lokapally, who has covered the sport for over three decades, offered me an insightful perspective when discussing these two players. “Razzaq was a craftsman with the ball,” he noted during our conversation at Delhi’s Arun Jaitley Stadium. “He could swing it both ways, had a deceptive slower ball, and most importantly, could bowl long spells.”
Indeed, Razzaq’s bowling was characterized by impeccable control and subtle variations rather than express pace. In his prime, he could operate as a genuine third seamer in any format, often opening the bowling and returning for the death overs. His classical side-on action allowed him to generate consistent outswing, particularly with the new ball.
“Razzaq could bowl six different deliveries in an over without breaking sweat,” recalled his former captain Rashid Latif when I interviewed him via Zoom for this piece. “He wasn’t just a part-timer you brought on to change the pace – he was a bowler you could rely on for full quotas in any situation.”
Pandya’s bowling, by contrast, centers around hitting the deck hard at speeds touching 140 kph. His primary weapons are the short-pitched delivery and the wide yorker, especially effective in T20 cricket. After his back surgery in 2019, Pandya’s bowling underwent significant evolution, focusing more on effectiveness in short bursts rather than extended spells.
“I don’t need to bowl ten overs every game,” Pandya told me during an interview in 2021. “My job is to make an impact whenever I have the ball. Sometimes that means two overs, sometimes six. Cricket has changed.”
This philosophical difference underscores the changing nature of all-rounders in modern cricket. Where Razzaq operated as a full-fledged third or fourth bowling option across formats, Pandya has evolved into a tactical bowling option deployed strategically by his captains.
Batting: Finisher vs Power-Hitter
Perhaps the most fascinating contrast between these two all-rounders lies in their batting approaches, which reflect the evolution of limited-overs cricket itself.
Abdul Razzaq was the quintessential finisher of his era – a player who could absorb pressure, rebuild an innings, and accelerate when needed. His technique was orthodox by design, allowing him to adapt to various match situations and conditions. His legendary 109* off 72 balls against South Africa in 2010, when Pakistan chased down 288 after being 136 for 5, epitomized his ability to single-handedly change the course of a game.
“Razzaq’s batting intelligence was his greatest asset,” noted Pakistan batting coach Mohammad Yousuf. “He could read the game situation perfectly and adjust his approach. One day he would bat three hours for 40 runs to save a Test, the next he would smash 30 in two overs to win a limited-overs game.”
Pandya represents the modern power-hitting all-rounder – a player whose batting is built around explosive ball-striking and innovative shot-making. His approach is tailor-made for the T20 era, where impact often supersedes consistency. His 33-ball 63 against England in the 2022 T20 World Cup semifinal showcased his ability to dominate even the highest-quality bowling attacks.
Former England captain Nasser Hussain provided an interesting perspective when I spoke with him during the last IPL. “The difference is in their primary skill,” he observed. “Razzaq was a technically correct batter who could muscle the ball when needed. Pandya is a power-hitter first who has developed enough technique to survive. Both approaches worked perfectly for their eras.”
This evolution reflects broader changes in batting philosophies. Razzaq averaged 37.2 in Tests, highlighting his technical proficiency in cricket’s most demanding format. Pandya averaged 31.3 in his brief Test career, but his impact was more often felt through counter-attacking innings rather than long occupations of the crease.
Impact and Match-Winning Ability
Cricket ultimately remembers players for their impact in crucial moments, and both all-rounders have delivered memorable performances under pressure.
Razzaq’s match-winning contributions were often more subtle and spread across longer formats. His 7 for 17 against Bangladesh in 2002 remains Pakistan’s best ODI bowling figures. His three Test centuries and 22 five-wicket hauls across formats underscore his all-round capabilities. Perhaps his finest hour came during Pakistan’s 2006 Test series win in India, where his crucial lower-order runs and timely wickets played a pivotal role.
“Razzaq was our security blanket,” former Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer once told me. “If the top order failed, he could rescue the innings. If our main bowlers were struggling, he could provide control. That versatility made him invaluable.”
Pandya’s impact has been more concentrated in white-ball cricket, particularly in tournament knockouts and high-pressure scenarios. His performance in the 2022 T20 World Cup against Pakistan (40 runs and 3/30) showcased his ability to influence big games. As captain, he led Gujarat Titans to the IPL title in their debut season, demonstrating leadership to complement his all-round skills.
“What separates Pandya is his temperament under pressure,” observed India’s former mental conditioning coach Paddy Upton during our conversation at a cricket conference last year. “He actively seeks out the decisive moments in games. That hunger to be the difference-maker sets elite all-rounders apart.”
The Fitness Factor: Different Eras, Different Demands
No comparison between these players would be complete without acknowledging the evolving physical demands of international cricket.
Razzaq played in an era when all-rounders were expected to bowl extended spells regularly and bat for long periods. His relatively uncluttered technique and efficient bowling action enabled him to maintain consistency across formats without breaking down frequently.
“We didn’t have the same emphasis on fitness back then,” admitted former Pakistan trainer Grant Luden. “Players like Razzaq relied more on natural stamina and cricketing skills rather than gym-honed power. The schedule also allowed more recovery time between matches.”
Pandya represents the modern athletic all-rounder, whose game is built around explosive power in both batting and bowling. His career has been significantly impacted by a chronic back condition that eventually required surgery in 2019. The demands of being a power-hitting, pace-bowling all-rounder in an era of year-round cricket have taken a physical toll.
“The modern all-rounder plays at least three times more cricket than their predecessors,” noted sports physiotherapist John Gloster when I interviewed him for a piece on cricketing injuries. “Their bodies are pushed to extremes repeatedly with minimal recovery time. It’s why genuine all-rounders are increasingly rare at the highest level.”
This context makes Pandya’s comebacks from injury all the more remarkable. After his back surgery, many questioned whether he would ever bowl at full intensity again. His ability to reinvent himself as a more strategic bowler while maintaining his batting explosiveness speaks to his adaptability.
Leadership and Team Role
Another fascinating dimension to this comparison is how both players fulfilled different leadership roles within their teams.
Razzaq was rarely in formal leadership positions but operated as a senior player who younger teammates could rely on. His calm demeanor under pressure and consistent performance made him a stabilizing presence in a notoriously volatile Pakistan dressing room.
“Abdul never sought the limelight,” his former teammate Saqlain Mushtaq told me. “He would quietly go about his business, deliver what the team needed, and return to the shadows. That selflessness is rare in international cricket.”
Pandya, conversely, has embraced leadership roles, captaining Gujarat Titans to an IPL title and serving as India’s T20I captain. His more expressive personality and confidence have shaped his development as a leader who leads from the front.
“Hardik understands modern players,” explained his Gujarat Titans coach Ashish Nehra during an IPL press conference I attended. “He knows when to put an arm around someone and when to demand more. That emotional intelligence makes him effective beyond just his playing abilities.”
The Verdict: Products of Their Era
After sifting through statistics, speaking with former players and coaches, and analyzing their impact, the conclusion seems clear: comparing Razzaq and Pandya directly is fundamentally flawed because they represent different cricket philosophies from different eras.
Akhtar’s claim that Razzaq was “ten times better” reflects a generational perspective that values technical correctness and all-round consistency across formats. By traditional all-rounder metrics, Razzaq indeed demonstrated more balanced contributions between bat and ball throughout his career.
However, cricket has evolved dramatically. Pandya represents the specialized all-rounder of the T20 generation – a player whose impact is measured more by decisive interventions than consistent contributions. His ability to change games in ten-minute bursts with either bat or ball defines his value in modern cricket.
“Both were exactly what their teams needed in their respective eras,” concluded former India all-rounder Irfan Pathan when I sought his opinion. “Razzaq was the perfect utility player for traditional cricket, while Pandya is the ideal impact all-rounder for the T20 age. Comparing them directly misses the point of how cricket has evolved.”
Perhaps the last word should go to Razzaq himself, who offered a gracious perspective when asked about Akhtar’s comments. “Every generation has its stars,” he told a Pakistani news channel. “Hardik is a fine player who has achieved great things for India. These comparisons are for fans to enjoy but don’t tell the complete story.”
As cricket continues its rapid evolution, all-rounders like Razzaq and Pandya serve as important markers of how the sport’s demands and philosophies have changed. Rather than definitively ranking them, perhaps we should appreciate them as perfect exemplars of what an all-rounder needed to be in their respective eras.
The debate Akhtar has sparked will undoubtedly continue in cricket circles from Karachi to Kolkata. But beyond the tribal loyalties and nostalgic biases, there lies a more nuanced truth: both Razzaq and Pandya mastered the art of all-round cricket according to the demands of their time, leaving an indelible mark on the sport’s rich tapestry.
In an era where genuine all-rounders are increasingly endangered, perhaps we should celebrate both for keeping alive cricket’s most challenging specialization – the ability to change games with both bat and ball.
Also Read –
Shahid Afridi Questions Shadab Khan’s Place In Pakistan Squad Amid Cricket Crisis
